(navigation image)
Home American Libraries | Canadian Libraries | Universal Library | Community Texts | Project Gutenberg | Biodiversity Heritage Library | Children's Library | Additional Collections
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload
See other formats

Full text of "Regional airport systems study : final plan"

REGionni. BIRPORT 

systems sruov 

FINAL PLAN 



OABAG 





SAH FRANCISCO PUBLIC LIBRARY 

SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 



REFERENCE 
BOOK 



Nol to be taken from the Library 



SAN FRANCISCO PUBLIC LIBRARY 




3 1223 05949 1226 



REGIONAL AIRPORT SYSTEMS STUDY 
FINAL PLAN 



Presented by the Regional Airport Systems Study Committee: 



Supervisor Warren Boggess 
Contra Costa County 
Chairman of the Committee 

Supervisor John Mclnnis 
Marin County (Represented by 
Ray W. Foreaker, Jr. 
Director of Public Works) 

Supervisor Marshall Sears 
Napa County 

Supervisor Quentin L. Kopp 
San Francisco City and County 

William R. Lawson 
(former Councilman) 
San Mateo County 

Supervisor Ralph H. Mehrkens 
Santa Clara County 



Councilman William M. McCall 
Alameda County 

Vice-Chairman of the Committee 

Mayor Thomas Hannigan 
Solano County 

Mayor Helen Putnam 
Sonoma County 

Ben E. Nutter 

Executive Director, Port of Oakland 
James K. Carr 

Director of Airports, San Francisco 

James M. Nissen 

Airport Manager, San Jose 

Walter E. Gillfillan 
Project Coordinator 



June 1972 



Adopted as a Special Plan Element to the Association's Regional Plan 
on November 30, 1972. 



The preparation of this report was financed in part through an 

urban planning grant from the Department of Housing and Urban 

Development under the provisions of Section 701 of the Housing 
Act of 1954 as amended. 



FOREWORD 



This report was prepared for the Regional Airport Systems Study 
Committee by Walter E. Gill fill an, Project Coordinator, and by 
Association of Bay Area Governments staff members Connie Bastian, 
Nancy Jerrick, Paul Spiegel, and Ross Turner. 

Chapter I presents the plan for a regional airport system. This 
plan is incorporated into ABAG ; s Regional Plan 1970:90 as its 
aviation plan element. 

Chapters II through VII provide the reader with an overview of 
the study elements. They include the alternatives considered, 
the working papers of the Committee, the input from citizens and 
organizations, and the goal, policies, and decision criteria 
used in making the decision. Implementation of the plan is 
discussed in Chapter VIII. 

Certain assumptions and data which appear in Chapter III were 
revised later in the study, many of them in accordance with the 
revision by the Committee of the initial aviation forecast used 
in the technical reports. The adopted decision criteria in 
Chapter IV contain the new assumptions made by the Committee. 
Chapter I and the appendices present key data which includes any 
modifications of the original work and which can by used by the 
reader as a technical summary and reference. 



3 1223 05949 1226 



TABLE OF CONTENTS 



PAGE 

I. THE RECOMMENDATION 1 

Forecast 7 

Commercial Aircraft Movements 8 

General Aviation 9 

Technology Changes 11 

Capacity 12 

Access 16 

Environmental Considerations 17 

Air Quality 17 

Noise 19 

Other 23 

Economic Impact 23 

Capital Cost 24 

II. BACKGROUND 1 

III. TECHNICAL STUDIES 1 

Introduction and Inventory 1 

Forecast 5 
Issue Papers : 

"Aviation Forecast" 7 
"Commercial Aviation Passenger 

Forecasting" 11 

Access and Capacity 17 
Issue Papers : 

"Airport Access" 21 

"Airport and Airspace Capacity" 26 
"A Measure of Efficient Use of 

Aviation Facilities" 31 
"Further Analysis of Airport 

Utilization Factors" 35 

Environmental Studies 39 
Issue Papers : 

"The Effect of Aviation on 

Air Quality" 41 
"Aviation Noise Evaluations and 

Projections for the Bay Region" 48 
"The Effect of Aviation on Phys 

ical Environment and Land Uses" 55 

"Bay fill" 62 



i 



PAGE 



Economic Studies 67 
Issue Papers : 

"Capital Cost of Airport 

Alternatives" 69 
"Economic and Spatial Impact 
of Alternative Airport 

Locations" 72 

Special Subjects 79 
Issue Papers : 

"General Aviation in the 

Bay Region" 81 
"Vertical and Short Take-off 

and Landing Aircraft" 88 

"The California Corridor" 94 
"Relationship Between Sacramento 
and the Bay Area Air Traffic 

and Passenger Market" 97 

"A Review of Airport Ownership" 105 

IV. GOAL, POLICIES, AND DECISION CRITERIA 1 

Goal and Policies 5 

Forecast Decision Criteria 9 

Access Decision Criteria 11 

Capacity Decision Criteria 12 

Noise Decision Criteria 13 

Air Quality Decision Criteria 15 

Additional Committee Actions 16 

V. CITIZEN RESPONSE AND PUBLIC INFORMATION 1 

Public Hearings 2 

Letters 5 

Questionnaire Results 7 

VI. THE ALTERNATIVES 1 

Preliminary Alternatives 7 
Issue Papers : 

"Alternatives" 10 
"An Analysis of Additional 

Airport Sites" 15 
"Potential for California 
Corridor Airline Service to 

the North Bay Counties" 19 



ii 



PAGE 



"Recommendation for a Future 
Northern Counties Airline 

Service Point" 22 

"An Evaluation of the Bay Area 

Military Airports" 24 

Alternatives Revision #1 27 

Alternatives Revision #2 30 

Alternatives Revision #3 33 

Alternatives Revision #4 34 

VII. COORDINATION WITH OTHER AGENCIES 1 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Testimony 3 
Air Transport Association 

Testimony 6 
Bay Conservation & Development 

Commission Statement 20 
Save San Francisco Bay Assoc. 

Notices 22 
Bay Area Council Statement 23 

VIII. IMPLEMENTATION 1 

Project Review Policies and 

Procedures - Excerpts 3 



APPENDIX A: DISTRIBUTION OF 1975, 1980, AND 1985 
GENERAL AVIATION DEMAND TO BAY AREA 
AIRPORTS 



APPENDIX B: FORECASTS 



APPENDIX C: CAPITAL COST ESTIMATES 



iii 



MAPS AND FIGURES 



PAGE 

Major Airports - Map I- 3 

General Aviation Airports - Map I- 5 

Aviation Forecast Summaries 1-10 

San Francisco Bay Area Major Jet 

Arrival and Departure Routes 1-13 

Regional Airport Systems Study Committee II- 2 

Regional Airport Systems Study Funding II- 3 

Regional Airport Systems Study Process II- 7 

Regional Airport Systems Study 

Publications III- 4 

Access Demand vs. Airport Capacity 1 1 1-25 

Air Pollution Potential Areas III -46 

Aircraft vs. Ground Vehicle Emission 

Levels 1 1 1-47 

Simplified Land Use Interpretations of 

Noise Exposure Forecast Values 1 1 1 -53 

Comparison of Approximate Land Areas 

Within NEF 30 and 40 Contours 1 1 1-54 

References to General Aviation in 

Regional Airport Systems Study Reports 1 1 1-87 

Noise Compatibility Interpretation IV-14 

Airport Alternatives - Map VI- 5 



IV 




I -The Plan 



CHAPTER I 



THE RECOMMENDATION 



Airline Airports (see Figure 1) 

- San Francisco Airport (SFO) growth continues to a maximum 
of about 31 million annual passengers (MAP) by 1985. 

- Oakland Airport (OAK) begins to assume an increasingly 
larger role as a regional airport, reaching about 24 MAP 
by 1985. 

- San Jose Airport (SJC), limited by its environmental impact 
on the community, diverts passengers to SFO and OAK after 
reaching its approximate environmental capacity of 10 MAP 
in 1985. 

- Hamilton Air Force Base (joint civil/military use) or Napa 
County Airport are identified as North Bay service points 
for California Corridor traffic and are limited at the 
request of the sponsoring counties to 1 MAP by 1985. 

- Travis Air Force Base (joint civil/military use) is 
identified at 6 MAP by 1985 to begin to serve the market 
areas of Solano, Napa, and parts of Contra Costa Counties. 
It also has the potential of serving a broader regional 
need in the future. 

Military Airports 

- The existing military airports are assumed to continue 
military operation at present levels through 1985. The 
recommended plan for civil aviation does not infringe on 
the military requirements. 

General Aviation Airports (see Figure 2) 

- 11 existing general aviation airports will be vital to 
the Region and will serve a large number of users through- 
out the Region: 

Oakland North Airport 
Hayward Air Terminal 
Buchanan Field 
Livermore Municipal 



I-l 



San Carlos Airport 
Gnoss Field 
Reid-Hillview Airport 
San Jose Municipal 
Palo Alto Airport 
Napa County Airport 
Half Moon Bay Airport 



- With the possible loss of 8 privately owned airports 
between now and 1 985 s 11 new general aviation airports 
will be needed to serve the Region as replacements and 
to provide facilities for the projected growth. This 
would mean new airports by 1985 in: 



This is the regional plan for the nine Bay Area counties. It is not 
intended to prevent development of a local airport for local purposes 
unless such development would interfere with the aviation element or 
other elements of the Regional Plan. In the Committee's judgment, it 
best fits the decision criteria and reflects the priorities among 
conflicting issues. 

The Reasons for the Plan S election 

What follows is a description of the individual subject areas that the 
Regional Airport Systems Study Committee dealt with. It is a compendium 
of the technical reports prepared by contractors for the Committee, of 
the technical material submitted by other agencies, of opinion expressed 
at the public hearings, of staff briefings, and finally of the consensus 
reached by the Committee. 

While attention is directed to the 1985 portion of the plan, the Committee 
has reviewed and identified the intermediate steps through 1975 and 1980 
to allow an achievable path to 1985. The decision criteria used as a 
basis for the choice of airports are spelled out. These criteria act 
as conditions which must be met by the chosen alternative, noise being 
a significant example. 

The remainder of this chapter presents details of the plan. The appendices 
supplement the text in providing technical materials used by the Committee, 
including any revisions made during the course of the study. While the 
individual elements are dealt with separately here, the Committee had to 
consider all of them together when evaluating the alternatives and making 
the final choice. 



* South County Airport now under construction. 



Alameda County 
Contra Costa County 
Napa County 
San Mateo County 
Santa Clara County 
Solano County 
Sonoma County 



4* 



2 



1 



1-2 



Figure 1 



jr 1 " 



HAMILTON OR NAPA 

1 million annual passengers 



\ 



□ 



TRAVIS 

6 million annual 
! passengers 



OAKLAND 
24 million annual passenger: 



SAN FRANCISCO 
31 million annual passengers 



SAN JOSE 
10 million annual passengers 



MAJOR AIRPORTS 

1985 REGIONAL AIRPORT PLAN RECOMMENDATION 
Existing airline service 
| New airline service 
J New airline options 



1-3 




Gnoss Field 



Smith Ranch 



Maine Prairie 



Rio Vista 



Buchanan Field 



Oakland North 




Hayward Municipal 



Livermore Municipal 



San Carlos 



Half Moon Bay 



GENERAL AVIATION AIRPORTS 

1985 REGIONAL AIRPORT PLAN RECOMMENDATION 

I! Publicly owned 

Privately owned, public use 

Privately owned, likely to close 

2 Number of new general aviation 
airports required in the county 
by 1985. 



Palo Alto 
1 



Fremont Skysailing 
Fremont 



Reid Hillview 



San Jose 
Municipal 





Morgan 



South County 




Forecast 



Passengers : The forecasting was based on a historical relationship 
between population, income, and employment and the generation of local 
and visiting air passengers for the Bay Region. (A description of this 
process is included in Chapter III.) 

The original forecast made in 1969 utilized the projections for population 
and employment from the Bay Area Transportation Study Commission together 
with income forecasts made by the contractor. That resulted in a projection 
of 83 MAP for the Bay Area by 1985. 

Subsequent data from the 1970 Federal census together with many comments 
at the public hearings caused the Committee to ask the General Assembly 
of ABAG for a revaluation of the BATSC projections used in ABAG's 
Regional Plan 1970:90 . As that revaluation would take some time, the 
Committee adopted as an interim projection the revised California Depart- 
ment of Finance population figures for the nine-county Region. Holding 
the per capita income and employment unchanged, the passenger projections 
were recalculated to produce: 



Further detail is shown in Appendix B. 

While these passenger projections include factors to reflect the economic 
recession of 1969-71, the forecast growth rates nevertheless show a 
broader use of air transportation by more people. The Air Transport 
Association, using a different evaluation of the effects of the recession, 
revised their projections downward to 59 MAP by 1985.* The difference of 
13 million passengers, however, represents only about a 3-4 year difference 
in the time at which passenger volume would reach the higher forecast level. 



* ATA Airline Airport Demand Forecasts, San Francisco/Oakland Report , 
Air Transport Association, January 1971 and as revised October 1971. 



Forecast (millions of annual passengers) 
Original Revised 



1975 
1980 
1985 



31 
51 

83 



28 
44 
72 



1-7 



As the Committee considered the variations that could occur within the 
assumptions necessary to the forecast, it became apparent that a forecast 
of 28 MAP by 1975 was more realistically 26 to 30 MAP between 1974 and 
1976, and 67 to 77 MAP between 1982 and 1988 instead of exactly 72 MAP 
in 1985. While stated in specific numbers, this variability is inherent 
in all of the Committee's work. 

Cargo : The revision in population projections showed a downward change 
in the cargo estimates, as shown below. More important, though, was 
the Committee's review of the original technical work that suggested a 
very high (85%) proportion of cargo in all -cargo aircraft by 1985. 
Because of the increasing use of wide-bodied and large jumbo jets, the 
Committee felt that the increased cargo-carrying capability would depress 
the use of all -cargo aircraft. A maximum of 60% was therefore assumed. 
The effect of this was to identify no need for separate all -cargo 
airports to serve the Region. 

Because of the uncertainties expressed by the contractor in the cargo 
projections by county, no breakdown of total cargo for the Region has 
been included in this report. 

Pounds of Cargo 
(millions of pounds) 

1975 1980 1985 
Original Projection 2,006 4,620 9,371 

Modified Projection 1 ,454 3,163 6,690 



Mail : The mail traffic volumes were developed in cooperation with the 
U.S. Postal Service. Because 80% of this mail is the result of connections 
between flights in and out of the Region, no basis for revision from the 
original forecast due to changes in Bay Area population growth rate was 
found. 

Commercial Aircraft Movements 

This element of the study related the projections of growth to the 
capacity of facilities at hand. It was an issue that brought together 
the questions of runway and airspace capacity, noise, and the efficient 
use of airports and aircraft. As discussed in Chapter VIII, it also 
brought into focus the different agency and industry authorities and 
responsibilities affecting scheduling, load factors, peak-hour 
congestion, airport facilities, and airspace. 

The forecast work converted the number of passengers into aircraft move- 
ments by using the aircraft mix and scheduling patterns together with the 
proportion of occupied seats to determine the number of flights that would 
be necessary. The original work assumed an average seat occupancy factor 
for the Bay Region of 41% in 1975, 46% in 1980, and 47% in 1985. 



1-8. 



After reviewing the significance of this utilization factor and after 
meeting with the Civil Aeronautics Board staff, the Committee adopted 
and used 45% in 1975, 53% in 1980, and 60% in 1985. These seat factor 
levels, together with increasing size of aircraft, all-cargo flight 
operations, positioning flights, and other non-passenger commercial 
airline flights, mean that the average number of passengers per commer- 
cial flight operation must increase from today's range of 30-45 to 
65-70 in 1975, 80-85 in 1980, and 95-100 in 1985.* 

The revised total passenger and cargo forecast together with the higher 
utilization factor and greater use of combination passenger and cargo 
aircraft lowered the total annual commercial aircraft operations in the 
Bay Region in 1985 from 1.1 million to 729,000. 

General Aviation 

A significant imbalance in general aviation aircraft ownership was found 
among the counties of the Region. This appears due primarily to differ- 
ences in the availability of airport facilities among the counties. 
Using the original per capita ownership factors and the State Department 
of Finance population projections, the following ownerships by county 
of the owner's residence were forecast: 



County 


1975 


1980 


1985 


Alameda 


960 


1200 


1460 


Contra Costa 


600 


800 


1050 


Marin 


250 


340 


440 


Napa 


160 


220 


300 


San Francisco 


330 


380 


420 


San Mateo 


720 


940 


1170 


Santa Clara 


2100 


2960 


4000 


Solano 


180 


230 


320 


Sonoma 


380 


520 


700 


TOTAL 


5680 


7590 


9860 



These forecast aircraft were allocated to specific airports using the 
ownership address/aircraft location patterns established by the tax 
assessor's records in each county. The total number of annual airport 
operations was then estimated. Where theoretical capacity would be 
exceeded, overloading or diversion to other airports was estimated. The 
detail of this process is shown in Appendix A . 



* The lower number in each future case represents airports where the large 
747 type aircraft are not in use. 



1-9 



AVIATION FORECAST SUMMARIES 



ANNUAL TRAFFIC 





1975 


1980 


1985 


PASSENGERS (OOO) 


28,000 


44,000 


72,000 


CARGO (millions of lbs.) 


1 ,454 


3,163 


6,690 


MAIL (millions of lbs.) 


334 


400 


487 


AIRLINE OPERATIONS 


409,000 


524,000 


729,000 


GENERAL AVIATION AIRCRAFT 


5,680 


7,590 


9,860 


GENERAL AVIATION 
OPERATIONS (000) 


4,600 


6,700 


9,200 


PASSENGER BREAKDOWN BY AIRPORT (000) 






1975 


1980 


1985 


SFO 


19,000 


23,000 


31 ,000 


OAK 


6,000 


13,000 


24,000 


SJC 


3,000 


6,000 


10,000 


TRA 




1 ,000 


6,000 


HAM/ NAP 




1 ,000 


1 ,000 


TOTAL 


28,000 


44,000 


72,000 



1-10 



Technology C hanges 



Included in the forecast report, introduced in the staff briefings, and 
brought up at the public hearings were several possibilities for using 
alternative modes of transportation: 

High-speed G round Transp ortat ion: Of specific concern here was that a 
future high-speed ground transportation system would be built in the 
corridor between Los Angeles and the Bay Area and would change the need 
for air travel. The Committee concluded that some form of high-speed 
ground transportation might become available, but not as an operational 
system until after 1985. If it did become available, it would, 
according to the forecast contractor's estimate, reduce annual air 
passengers by the year 2000 from about 240 million to 150 million. 
It was noted that such a system would take a major public committment 
of land area and dollar resources for construction and would require 
high travel density for economical operation. 

Short Ta ke-off and L andin g (STOL): While there is a demonstrated 
capability in this technology and a major Federal research committment 
to it, the Committee could not find a clear enough definition of 
function or of facilities requirements to warrant including specific 
alternatives in the plan at this time. This technology may offer a 
greater potential for noise abatement and for use of existing airports 
by larger aircraft than for the original concept of a downtown-to- 
downtown transportation system. The recommendation is to continually 
review this capability for specific applications. 

Offshore Airports: There are extremely high capital costs for this type 
of airport, plus very difficult access problems. The major applicability 
here in the Bay Region might have been with the Mid-Bay alternative. Based 
upon the work done in Long Beach> San Diego, Chicago, and New York, the 
Committee rejected this option because substantially less costly and less 
environmentally disruptive alternatives were available. 

California Co rridor 

The largest single market providing air passengers into and out of the 
Bay Area is the corridor between here and southern California.* By 
comparison, it is significantly larger than any other market: 

Ranking by % of Total Air Passengers 



Passenger Volume Market Area 1 968 1 985 



1 Southern California 37 35 

2 Washington/Oregon 9 8 

3 New York Area 6 6 

4 Chicago 4 4 

5 Hawaii 3 3 

6 Central California 3 3 

7 International 3 3 



*Also within Cal ifornia, there is substantial traffic that involves the 
Bay Area, Sacramento, Fresno, and southern California. 



1-11 



The high frequency of flights and the competition existing in this one 
market provide a major capacity issue. For this reason, the Committee 
searched for a means of distributing the corridor air traffic over the 
entire Region. By distributing this particular air passenger traffic, 
a major reduction in average ground travel time and distance is effected. 
The advantage of a North Bay service point was identified in this way. 
As shown in Chapter VI, there is a demand in 1985 of about 2-3 million 
annual passengers in the southern California market. Based upon testi- 
mony from Napa and Marin County representatives, the Committee chose 
to accommodate only 1 million of these at one of the two North Bay sites. 



Capac ity 

As can be seen in Figure 3, the use of airspace in the Bay Area by air- 
craft serving the various airports is a complex one. With respect to 
that airspace, the Committee found, for the system they recommended, the 
foil owing : 

- The ability to provide visual traffic separation during a 
high proportion of the time in the Bay Area allows a higher 
hourly flow rate than might otherwise be the case. 

- OAK and Alameda have direct traffic conflicts. One Navy 
Ground Controlled Approach to Alameda can cancel as many 
as four operations at OAK.* As traffic grows at OAK, 
this conflict will be of more concern, but will not 
prevent OAK from accommodating the 1985 allocated traffic 
of 24 MAP. 



- The separation requirements between heavy** aircraft and 
smaller aircraft due to wake turbulence cause about a 10% 
loss in aircraft movements. 

Corrected for "heavy" 
Original Capacity Aircraft Separation 
Estimate Requirem ents 



Hourly Annual Hourly Annual 

VFR IF R Peak (000) VFR IFR Peak (000) 

SF0 existing 76 51 86 424 

OAK existing 

(South Airport) 48 42 57 221 

OAK (1 new 
close-in runway) - - - 

SJC existing 145 + 59 + 21 3 + 51 5 + 70 70 81 320 ++ 

+ Including general aviation 
++ an extended Runway 12L-30R and 100% airline activity, 



65 


44 


74 


370 


39 


36 


45 


179 


68 


68 


79 


264 


70 


70 


81 


320 



* See Chapter VII, page 4 for the specifics of this relationship, 
** greater than 300,000 pounds gross take-off weight 



1-12 



- The Committee's contractor suggests that 15-20% improve- 
ments might be possible with new computer- aided approach 
sequencing available about 1980. FAA disagreed and the 
Committee chose the more conservative capacity numbers. 

- The capacity of an airport's runways to accommodate air- 
craft is expressed on both an hourly basis (Practical 
Hourly Capacity - PHOCAP) and an annual basis (Practical 
Annual Capacity - PANCAP). The annual capacity value is 
based upon specific hourly and daily variations. If, for 
example, the peak hour rate of 74 operations per hour for 
SFO were sustained for 24 hours per day, 365 days per year, 
SFO could theoretically accommodate 650,000 annual oper- 
ations instead of the 370,000 shown in the report. The 
370,000 reflects the fact that the actual operations res- 
pond to the hourly, daily, and seasonal variations in the 
public's demand for air travel services. Experience with 
other transportation problems, however, shows that 
travellers will eventually respond to the delays that occur 
during peak traffic periods by redistributing their time of 
travel. Though it is unlikely that full redistribution 
will occur, adjustments of passenger demand and airline 
scheduling can change the annual use. Consequently, 
annual capacity values should not be taken as absolutely 
fixed values. 

- FAA advised the Committee that SFO is now approaching 
practical hourly capacities during certain peak periods. 

- The Committee was advised that Hamilton AFB or Napa 
County Airport could accommodate civil jet traffic, but 
conflicts were a problem if both were to develop. 

- Travis AFB can accommodate traffic at the level allocated 
(60,000 annual operations) in addition to the 120,000 
military operations on the existing runway system and do 
so within the capacity of that runway system. The future 
air traffic system in the Sacramento area could accommodate 
this additional loading. 

- Area navigation capability in the terminal area is essential 
to accommodate this plan. Two-segment glide slope offers 
noise abatement advantages and possibly some relief to the 
lower altitudes traffic in the South Bay area. 

- The congestion and delays created by multiple scheduling during 
peak traffic periods was a major concern. No procedure exists 
today to bring the airports, airlines, FAA, regulatory agencies, 



1-15 



and communities together on this vital issue. The 
Committee has suggested an initial forum to meet and 
discuss this kind of problem before major congestion 
uccurs. (See Chapter VIII) The calculated capacities 
are known. The FAA has warned that these capacities 
are already being approached during certain periods at 
SFO. 

The decision criteria used by the Committee for capacity considerations 
are described in Chapter IV. 

Access 

The significance of the ground access portion of this work was focused 
not just on the land or transit capacity needed at each airport, but 
also upon the way access, combined with airline service levels, acts 
to distribute (or allocate) passengers among the various airports. 
The issue paper in Chapter III and the decision criteria adopted by 
The Committee (see Chapter IV) further describe this subject area. The 
final recommendation involves the following findings about ground access: 

- The average ground travel distance for air passengers in 
the Bay Area varied with the different combinations of 
airports considered. Where remote sites were involved 
(Hoi lister), this average distance got as high as 46 
miles. When close-in site alternatives were considered 
(SFO, OAK, Site E, and Napa), this average distance 
shrank to 21 miles. While the final plan recommendation 
was not actually computed, that airport system probably 
has an average ground travel distance of about 2.5 miles. 

- The Committee's final assumption was that by 1985 about 
80% of the passengers will have a choice of airport 
because of better airline service. Using this assumption, 
the passenger levels allocated by the Committee to each 
airport would be somewhat similar to the distribution 
based on passenger choice. This is true except for San 
Jose in 1980-85. Here, an artificial constraint (due to 
environmental issues) will require something in the order 
of 8 MAP to divert to SFO and OAK from the San Jose area. 

- The estimated travel time over the 1980 highway network 
envisioned by BATSC is: 

To Airports (minutes) 
Downtown SFO OAK SJC NAP HAM TRA 

San Francisco 20 32 50 59 50 86 

Oakland 40 19 53 51 56 78 

San Jose 45 44 13 90 98 110 

"- The Committee acknowledges the importance to SFO of the 1-380 
freeway connection between 1-280 and the Bayshore (Route 101) 
and the airport access road. 



1-16 



- Because the highway capacities are of concern at SFO and 
OAK at the 1980 to 1985 allocated activity levels, transit 
and additional highway capacity will be essential. Oakland 
particularly will require additional highway capacity for 
access as well as transit connections. The Committee, 
wanting to place emphasis upon transit access, chose the 
alternatives most likely to gain that access and then raised 
the assumption of the maximum percentage of passengers likely 
to use transit from 18 to 23, in order to clearly make transit 
access a condition of the recommended plan. Diversion of 
San Jose traffic to both SFO and OAK will depend heavily in 
later years upon transit as a dependable access mode. 

- Construction of the Southern Crossing was originally assumed 
in the ground access analysis. It was also reviewed in the 
San Francisco Airport Access Project. This work showed that 
the Southern Crossing would not be a significant factor in 
the allocation of passengers among the airports. However, 
the highway lane capacity is important to future growth at 
OAK. The Committee has concluded that it is possible that 

the Southern Crossing will not be built. The East Bay portions 
of the Southern Crossing road system (the Grove-Shaf ter 
extension and Route 61) do however remain as very important 
parts of OAK highway access capacity. If that road system is 
not built, additional routings will be needed and heavier 
reliance on transit will be required. 

ABAG 3 in cooperation with MTC, will in 1973 take the final passenger 
allocation represented in this plan and make a detailed analysis of the 
land and transit requirements for the plan. This work will also be 
coordinated with the two transit access studies presently underway at SFO 
and OAK. 

Environmental Considerations 



This element, unknown to studies of this kind five years ago, was included 
as one of the major subjects to be investigated. Specific work was done 
on air quality and noise and general work was done in a separate report to 
identify environmentally sensitive issues - human and wildlife habitats. 
Though not a part of a separate report, a review was also made of ABAG's 
open space plan element and some of the preliminary work done on the joint 
ABAG/U.S.G.S. San Francisco Bay Region Environment and Resourses Planning 
Study. A major concern in the Bay Area is Bay fill. This subject is 
summarized in a separate issue paper in Chapter III. 

Air Qualit y 

The work done by the Bay Area Air Pollution Control District depended 
heavily upon assumptions furnished by the ABAG staff as to the level of 
use that each airport would reach. Because this work Was done more than 
a year before the Committee's final recommendation, the traffic levels 



1-17 



used in it are different (higher) than the actual recommendation. Since 
that time, the following Committee actions were taken: 

- higher aircraft utilization was made a part of the decision 
criteria 

- passenger projections were revised to reflect reduced 
population growth 

- a redistribution of airline traffic with SJC less than its 
runway capacity occurred. 

In tabulated form, these changes then appear: 

1985 An nual A irline Operations (000) 

Original ABAG staff Final Committee 
est imat es used b y BAAPCD Act ion 



SFO 469 310 

OAK 357 240 

SJC 255 105 

TRA * 63 

HAM/ NAP * 11 



TOTAL 1081 729 

The effect of this change is to reduce the 1985 airline aircraft emissions 
originally estimated at these airports by about one-third - from 270 tons 
per day to about 200 tons per day (including general aviation). Another, 
and perhaps more significant, point is that the emissions are reduced the 
largest amount in the most critical zone, SJC (zone III-t-IV). 

The original BAAPCD work included all of the activities of aircraft, 
fueling, and ground vehicular traffic at the airport. The actual ground 
access trip to the airport was left until the actual airport alternatives 
were chosen and tha average trip distance was known. As estimated in the 
access part of this chapter, the average ground trip for all air passengers 
is about 25 miles. This has been calculated to produce about 80 tons per 
day in automobile emissions for passenger and employee travel. 

The following tabulation summarizes the total 1985 emissions for the 
Region : 



* Total airline operations were, in the original work, divided among the 
3 major existing airports. The alternative chosen includes Hamilton or 
Napa and Travis, and operations 'are allocated between all five airports. 



1-18 



Total Air Emissions, 1985 (tons per day) 
Original Final Plan 

Estimate Recommendation 



Total Nine-County 
(all sources) 



3584 



3600 



Aircraft 



270 



200 



Other Airport 



10 



10 



Automobile Access 
to Airports 



80 



Three assumptions used in this work are significant to the rise of aviation 
from about 1.5% of the present total air emissions to about 6% in 1985*: 



- the 1975 Federal motor vehicle emission standards will be met. 

- there will be no improvement in aircraft engine emissions 
beyond the clean burner cans for reduction of visible smoke on 
the JT8D jet engine. 

- residual fuel dumping will cease by 1975. 



There is a possibility that these assumptions may change. 

The BAAPCD noted in their report that wide variations exist in the technical 
data for components of air emissions from certain jet engines. The Air 
Transport Association in its technical review (see Chapter VII) pointed out 
these variations and suggested that the data finally selected were too high. 
ATA also pointed out that the specification for maximum sulfur content, 
used in fuel purchases, is two to three times higher than that of the 
actual fuel delivered. 



This subject area, while long a concern in many airport communities, was 
an area where the Committee found the greatest confusion of "fact." Among 
the problems they found were: 

- Until 1971 there was no regulation of noise in the certification 
of jet aircraft. Consequently, large numbers of "noisy" jet 
aircraft certificated before that time are in use today. Also, 
those same aircraft once certificated can be and are being 
manufactured and sold after 1971. 



If automobile access to airports is included, 1985 would be 8%. 



Noise 



1-19 



- There is no regulation of noise resulting from aircraft 
operations at an airport.* 

- The only absolute way an airport can prevent encroachment 
of residential areas into noise areas is to own the land. 
Attempts at zoning have failed time and again to provide 
adequate protection. 

- There has been no direct way a community can prevent 
increased aviation noise unless the citizens impacted by 
noise are the electorate that owns the airport. In these 
cases, curfews and limits on flight operations and types 
of aircraft are exercised, as well as restrictions upon 
size or capability of the airport facilities themselves. 

- Once an airline is certificated to serve an airport, there 
is currently little an adjacent community can do. The 
airlines have virtually unilateral authority to generate 
noise outside of controls by the Federal Aviation Adminis- 
tration, Civil Aeronautics Board, the airport owner, or 
the community. 

Working with these problems as a beginning point, the Committee was con- 
cerned about the aviation noise situation today and what effect its 
various airport alternatives, and its final aviation plan, would have on 
residents in the Bay Area. 

Finding a suitable measurement for analyzing community noise impact was 
difficult. There exist a number of sound measuring techniques that 
evaluate a single noise event. Some measure loudness or sound pressure 
levels. Others measure loudness and correct for pitch and tone effects 
of the noise as the human ear perceives it, and yet others correct for 
the time interval over which the noise is heard. But perception of noise 
as a problem has to do not only with loudness, but also with how often it 
is heard and at what time of day. Attempts have therefore been made to 
calculate indices that could be used to forecast the composite "bother- 
someness" of aircraft noise. The Committee was warned by the airline 
industry that a great deal more needs to be known about these indices 
and how they relate to human response. 

While the State of California proposed noise regulations are not yet 
effective, they are the only criteria available for relating aircraft noise 
and the airport community. The Committee also looked at the Noise Exposure 
Forecast (NEF) procedure developed under an FAA contract. Both of these 
systems attempt the same thing - to relate loudness, number of noise 



* As a result of Section 21669 of the State Publ ic' Uti 1 i ties Code, State 
regulation would become effective in December 1972. 



1-20 



applications, time of day 3 and the length of time of each noise event. 
The State procedure is developed from actual measurements. The NEF 
procedure forecasts the noise from some initial measurements. 



The Committee adopted the NEF procedure for forecasting the effect of 
present and future aircraft operations in the Bay Area. It also adopted 
the proposed State regulations as a standard of measurement for compliance, 

The NEF level adopted by the Committee as that causing concern for 
residential development was 30-35 and above. The initial work done would 
show the following land areas within certain NEF levels: * 



Aviation Noise Impact on Residential Areas 



1970 Traffic 
NEF Levels 





30-35 


35-40 


40-45 


>45 


30-35 


35-40 


40-45 


>45 


SFO 


















Residential 


















Acres 


2,294 


1 ,044 


310 


38 


1 ,420 


626 


76 





Residential 


















Residences 


14,574 


6,514 


1 ,577 


156 


9,139 


3,424 


361 





OAK*** 


















Residential 


















Acres 


86 











213 


7 








Residential 


















Residences 


444 











1 ,131 


42 








SJC 


















Residential 


















Acres 


360 


85 


34 


10 


426 


111 


29 


5 


Residential 


















Residences 


1 3 390 


317 


136 


47 


1 ,699 


438 


108 


24 



1985 Traffic 
NEF Levels** 



* A separate report, Airport Noise and Land Use Analysis , provides a 
computer program ancT land use data bank to calculate impacted areas 
from various contours. 

** These 1985 traffic levels are for the existing runways operating at 

capacity: SFO = 424,000 (382,000 airline); OAK = 221,000 (all airline); 
SJC = 398,000 (117,000 airline) annual operations. 

*** It was pointed out during the public response that flight path pro- 
cedures flown at OAK are different from those assumed in the above 
calculations. The effect of this would be to reduce residential 
impact areas. 

I--21 



By 1985 ; California State regulations will require existing airports to 
have no residential areas in the 65 CNEL level or above. This is equiv- 
alent to approximately 30 NEF or above. The 65 CNEL criteria now applies 
to new airports and to civilian use of military airports. 

As can be seen, the noise decision criteria (see Chapter IV) could not be 
met at any of the three airports under this original assumption of traffic. 
The Committee felt that it was reasonable to assume that its noise criteria 
could be met at each airport if: 

- a higher aircraft utilization than originally assumed allowed 
the same number of passengers to be carried in fewer flights 

- a reduction in the forecast also reduced the total number of 
flights required 

- a diversion of some civil flight operations to Travis and 
Hamilton AFB occurred. Existing noise impact from military 
traffic would not appear to be noticeably increased. 

- early retirement or engine retrofit of 727 5 737, and DC-9 
aircraft took place. The initial forecasts for 1985 included 
a number of pre-Federal certification standard airplanes in 
the mix. 

- no conversions of existing compatible land uses occurred 

- no construction of residential areas in lands that are now 
vacant in the present and future impact areas occurred 

- certain critical existing residential areas were acquired by 
the airports and the use changed from residential 

- technology would allow the two-segment approach to be 
applied to all landing aircraft. 

The plan is specifically conditioned upon present State of California or 
other noise criteria being met. It should be realized that the original 
noise contours done for the Committee were for a specific set of conditions. 
Changes in operating procedures, aircraft mix, or numbers of aircraft will 
cause changes in those contours. It is also possible that improved know- 
ledge about aircraft noise and human response will provide better information 
and noise forecasting procedures. The monitoring now being installed at the 
major airports will be very helpful in this regard. 

The forum suggested in Chapter VIII, the information and decision criteria 
developed in this study, the individual county airport land use commissions, 
the State noise regulations, FHA criteria on noise, and environmental impact 
statement requirements will all interact to allow us to deal for the first 
time in a positive way with aircraf.t noise. 



1-22 



Other Environmental Considerations 



A major effort was made to somehow systemize the consideration of environ- 
mental issues in an environmental impact report contracted for the study. 
While a good general inventory of environmental resources resulted, it 
was very clear that we have a great deal to learn about the interactions 
of human, plant, and animal life. The Committee felt that it was not 
able to deal with these issues with a definite analytical procedure, but 
tried to subjectively judge the relative importance of the various areas 
of concern. The following sources are a partial list of the material 
reviewed for this purpose: 

- The San Francisco Bay Plan , Bay Conservation and Development 
Commission 

- Open Space Plan Element, ABAG 

- Physical Resources of the San Francisco Bay Area, ABAG 

- San Francisco Bay Region Environment and Resources Planning 
Study, ABAG/HUD/U.S.G.S. 

- South Bay Wildlife Refuge Plan 

- Golden Gate National Recreation Area 

- New Communities in the Bay Area , ABAG 

- Regional Plan 1970:90, ABAG 

The recommended plan makes maximum use of already developed land areas. 
It avoids placing new airports in ecologically sensitive areas, and avoids 
conflicts with the wildlife and open space plans for the Region. The 
proposed South Bay wildlife refuge was a major reason for the rejection of 
a major facility in that area. 

Looking at all of the issues involved, the Committee did choose an alter- 
native which includes Bay fill at OAK. Approval from BCDC would have to 
be obtained in the mid-1970s in order to construct a new runway needed to 
accommodate the allocated traffic level. 

Economic Impact 

The original eleven airport alternatives were tested for economic benefits. 
The evidence indicated that, from a regional point of view, the total growth 
of basic aviation-oriented employment in the Region remains unchanged regard- 
less of which airport options are chosen. It did make a significant difference, 
however, to individual communities in terms of employment and housing location, 
sales tax generation, and population-serving employment activity. The 
Committee was principally concerned with Region-wide benefits rather than 
specific community advantages. 

The Association's Regional Plan calls for a city-centered concept of 
development, focusing on existing urbanized cores with some new or expanding 
communities located at the fringes of the core areas. Airline airports at 



1-23 



the outer edges of the urban areas tend to relocate employment and urban 
growth away from the core area if the airport is large. At a smaller 
size, however, such an airport could provide a modest new employment 
center, while leaving the major job centers within the existing housing/ 
employment centers. This latter case is characteristic of the aviation 
plan chosen. 

To illustrate this, the following table shows the estimate of employment 
and acreage change between 1965 and 1985 activity levels for the airports 
in the plan. The basic employment levels from the original report have 
been proportionately adjusted where necessary to reflect the final plan 
recommendation. The Bay Area Transportation Study Commission (BATSC) 
zone numbers represent the built-up areas associated with the airports. 



Basic Civil Aviation Employment and Land Area 
Required to Support Employment 





BATSC 
Zone 




1 965 
Employment 
(000) 


Acreage 


MAP 


1985 
Employment 
(000) 


Acreage 


SFO 


61/66 


8.7 


34.3 


3,300 


31 


59.2 


3,800 


OAK 


255 


1.0 


11.9 


2,400 


24 


26.5 


1,900 


SJC 


186 


.13 


14.4 


2,100 


10 


24.0 


1 ,400 


HAM 
NAP 


49 
109 








1 
1 


3.0 
3.6 


1 ,300 
300 


TRA 


118 








_6 


5.2 


1,200 


TOTALS 


9.83 


60.6 


7,800 


72 


117.9* 


9,600* 



* Only HAM included in the total. 



Capital Cos t 

The cost estimates that were prepared for this study were based on some 
variations of the initial eleven airport alternatives. As with other 
portions of the study work, modifications to the original analyses were 
necessary to reflect the final recommended plan. Details of these modi- 
fications are included in Appendix C. 

The cost estimates are conceptual in nature and provided the Committee 
with a measure of the relative cost of each of the various alternatives. 
They also provided them with some insight into whether or not the incre- 
ments of development could be finahced and how. 



1-24 



A summary of development cost estimates for each of the time periods 
follows: 



Estimate of Capital Cost ($ millions) 
(Public Funds Only) 

1975* 1980* 1985' 



SFO 90.0 120.0 244.7+ 

OAK 16.5 34.8 111.2+ 

SJC 25.0** 65.0 100.0+ 

HAM - 11.7 11.7 

NAP - 16.1 16.1 

TRA - 8.4*** 27.9**** 

G/A ++ ++ 47.7 



TOTAL 131.5 239.9+++ 543.2+++ 



* Figures are cumulative from the present. 

** These estimates were obtained from SJC capital program. 

*** Assumes joint use of the existing runway system. 

**** If a completely separate runway were required, the land and 

construction cost would raise this to 32 or 66, depending upon 
whether a close-in or a wide-track runway configuration were used 

+ These figures do not include transit. 

++ General aviation estimates are given only for 1985, and not 

pro-rated for 1975 and 1980. 
+++ Totals include HAM and not NAP. 



As the size of the airline airport increases, the proportion of capital 
development provided by private funds increases. As was noted in the 
original report, about 80% of the investment to date at SFO is private 
monies. 



SFO 


OAK 


SJC 


TOTAL 


Public 251.4 


45.5 


3.9 


300.8 


Private 842.1 


1 .5 


1.1 


844.7 


TOTAL 1093.5 


47.0 


5.0 


1145.5 



1-25 



The extent of public and private long-term committments was significant 
to the Committee and was one of the issues that caused them to focus on 
a high utilization of the airports at hand. 

The very high cost of transit extensions to remote airport sites, $1.1 
billion for Hoi lister and $520 million for Travis, was of major concern 
to the Committee. While realizing that the extension from Fremont to 
Hollister would be allocated to many uses other than airport access, the 
cost of even a 10% allocation is very large ($110 million). Recognizing 
the use of transit as an important access capacity requirement and a very 
desirable environmental factor, the Committee identified the close-in 
airports of SFO and OAK as the most probable of being connected to BARTD. 
The limitation on the size of SJC will require the movement of about 
8 million passengers annually to SFO and OAK from the Santa Clara County 
market area in 1985, and transit could be important to that passenger 
movement . 

The extension of the BARTD system to Sacramento has been studied for 
some time, and the Committee considers this to be a possibility. With 
the initial development of Travis to 1 MAP and later to 6 MAP, transit 
is not a requirement. However, later airport growth could make the 
transit possibility to Sacramento very important to Travis. 

Implementatio n ~_T h e_ N e xt Ste p s 

The implementation measures are discussed in Chapter VIII. Because of 
the high demand and use of existing facilities, the plan is apparently 
feasible. However, the limitations must be stressed. It is recognized 
that citizen concern with noise, air pollution, and traffic congestion 
will increase as the airport usage is increased unless there are suc- 
cessful efforts in meeting noise and air pollution standards and suc- 
cessful provision of highway and transit access to the major airports. 
If these built-in standards cannot be met or the system facilities cannot 
be provided, a major plan revision will be necessary. 

For this reason the Plan is designed in increments so the projections can 
be monitored and progress reviewed. Monitoring is a key implementation 
activity. Review and comment is the second major implementation activity. 
Reviews will be based on plan criteria. 

Finally it is proposed to create a forum to bring together the airlines, 
airport owners, state and federal regulatory agencies, and representatives 
of Bay Area Communities. In the course of the study, it became clear that 
a number of agencies make key decisions affecting airports but without, in 
all cases, considering the full range of impacts. With an approved, agreed 
on plan the forum, and the Bay Area, can be very effective in influencing 
these key decisions. 

While the forum would not possess implementation power, it would represent 
all the agencies at various levels of government, the private sector, and 
the overall community interest that are needed, in the nature of regional 
planning for aviation, to implement a balanced plan. 



1-26 



CHAPTER II 



BACKGROUND 



The Regional Airport Systems Study (RASS) was aimed at preparing a 
long-range airport systems plan that takes thorough account of all 
aviation needs, area resources, and diverse public interests in the 
Bay Region. 



Several years ago it became apparent that the growing demand for 
aviation services in the Region presented problems and questions which 
had broad impact throughout the Region and which had to be answered. 
The City and County of San Francisco, the Port of Oakland, and the 
City of San Jose, as owners of the three major regional airports, 
entered into a joint exercise of powers agreement in 1967 to study the 
need for future facilities to serve aviation users. The result was 
the Bay Area Study of Aviation Requirements (BASAR). 

Because the problem was a regional one, with impacts on people and 
environment throughout the entire Bay Area, the Association of Bay 
Area Governments (ABAG) joined with BASAR in 1969 to form the Regional 
Airport Systems Study as part of its planning program. To make the 
study responsive to public interests throughout its entire development, 
a Study Committee was appointed, consisting of an elected official from 
each of the nine counties together with representatives of the three 
major airports. This Committee was given the responsibility of setting 
the goals and policies of the study, guiding the direction of the effort, 
and making the final recommendations. The emphasis has been regional; 
the attempt has been to anticipate and solve, through planning, the huge 
number of complexities and conflicts before they occur. 



II-l 



REGIONAL AIRPORT SYSTEMS STUDY COMMITTEE 



COUNTY OF ALAMEDA: 
William M. McCall 
Alameda City Councilman 
Vice-Chairman of the Committee 

COUNTY OF MARIN: 

John F. Mclnnis 

Marin County Supervisor 

COUNTY OF NAPA: 

Marshall Sears 

Napa County Supervisor 

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO: 
Quentin L. Kopp 

San Francisco County Supervisor 

COUNTY OF SAN MATEO: 

William R. Laws on 

Former Councilman of Menlo Park 

COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA: 

Ralph H. Mehrkens 

Santa Clara County Supervisor 



COUNTY OF SOLANO: 
Thomas Hannigan 
Mayor of Fairfield 

COUNTY OF SONOMA: 
Helen Putnam 
Mayor of Petal uma 

METROPOLITAN OAKLAND INTERNATIONAL 

AIRPORT: 

Ben E. Nutter 

Executive Director, Port of Oakland 

SAN FRANCISCO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT: 
James K. Carr 
Director of Airports 

SAN JOSE MUNICIPAL AIRPORT: 
James M. Nissen 
Airport Manager 



COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA: 
Warren N. Boggess 
Contra Costa County Supervisor 
Chairman of the Committee 



City and County of San Francisco were represented by Supervisor Ronald 
Pelosi until April 1972. 

San Francisco International Airport was represented by George M. Hansen 
until June 1971 . 

Alternate for Supervisor Mclnnis: Ray W. Foreaker , ~ Jr. 

Alternate for Supervisor Pelosi: John Schel lenberger 

II-2 



FUNDING 



The Regional Airport Systems Study was funded by federal and local 
sources over a period of almost three years, as follows: 



3 Major Airports $135,400 

ABAG 60,400 

HUD (Dept. of Housing 

and Urban Development) 350,000 

FAA (Federal Aviation 

Administration) 41,700 

TOTAL $587,500 



1 1-3 



Technical Studies 



The first step of the study process was the collection of basic information: 
an inventory of available aviation facilities and data concerning airport 
capacity, airspace capacity, and ground access. A forecast of future 
demands for aviation services was also undertaken. These studies were then 
implemented by four environmental reports, two economic reports, and 
supplements to the capacity and access work. The major pieces of this fact- 
gathering and analysis were accomplished through sub-studies done by con- 
sulting specialists. To coordinate this work and to consolidate and analyze 
the results, a small study staff was appointed, with Walter E. Gillfillan 
as Study Director. 

Al ternatives 

At the beginning, the Study Committee considered existing and possible new 
airports in the Region and selected eleven preliminary alternatives for 
detailed study - eleven ways in which the various airports might be developed 
in combination. These alternatives were by no means exclusive; rather, they 
served to orient the technical studies around widely varied, yet specific, 
possibilities and provide a focus and point of reference. This approach 
allowed modifications and additions which could then be compared with the 
original alternatives and with each other. (Refer to Chapter IV for a 
detailed discussion of Alternatives.) 

Issue Papers 

Another important element of the technical studies was the development of 
issue papers by staff. Originally, these papers were written to summarize 
and interrelate the technical reports; as they evolved, they expanded to 
include many additional subject areas which the Committee identified and 
wished to investigate in some detail. The papers were especially useful in 
emphasizing the complex relationships between the various subject areas, 
and pointed to the coming process of weighing and balancing the many factors 
to be considered in making a decision. 

Public Participation 

Throughout its course, the Study Committee encouraged response from concerned 
groups and individuals to incorporate into its evaluations. Over thirty 
Committee meetings, open to the public, were held during the study. 
Ex-officio members were active participants in the study, and representatives 
from many organizations regularly attended the meetings and conferred with 
staff and Committee. 



II-4 



Perhaps the most important facet of this open process was the opportunity 
for citizens to advise the Committee on issues and points of view prior 
to Committee decision. Public hearings were held throughout the Region 
at five locations: Fairfield (November 1971), Oakland (December 1971), 
San Jose (January 1972), San Francisco (February 1972), and San Rafael 
(February 1972). Speakers presented their opinions and suggestions, 
resulting in over 600 pages of transcribed testimony. 

In addition, 30,000 copies of a four-page informational newspaper were 
distributed throughout the Region over a period of seven months. A 
questionnaire in the paper soliciting positions and priorities was 
responded to by 850 people, and a computer analysis was made of the 
results. 950 letters were also received. A more detailed description 
of citizen response is included in Chapter V. 

The Decision Process 

Because of the large number of elements included in it, the aviation 
study was a continually-evolving process. The most difficult achievement 
was putting all of the pieces together as they were being modified and 
expanded. 

The Study Committee had to survey all of its materials from several points 
of view: technical, economic, social, and environmental. Out of the studies, 
coordination, and response, some sort of ordering of concerns and priorities 
had to be established. For this purpose, a goal and policies were formulated 
to give the decision process guidelines and direction. Goal and policies 
were further refined into specific decision criteria for five of the subjects 
considered: forecast, access, capacity, noise, and air quality. The decision 
criteria were developed to respond to the input from as many sources as 
possible in order to be both responsible and realistic. 

The process became complex and arduous. Conflicts between decision criteria 
occurred for some of the alternatives and had to be resolved; questions had 
to be foreseen and answered. How much growth should be accommodated? 
Should or can high-speed ground travel substitute for some of the aviation 
demand? Do all segments of society benefit from air travel? What priorities 
are appropriate among airspace users? Among environmental impacts, does 
reduction of noise justify development of open space or the filling of the 
Bay? Will passengers use an airport which requires long access travel times? 
Will airlines put service there? 

In this way, the alternatives were accepted, modified, and rejected. Public 
hearings sometimes resulted in the elimination of some alternatives which 
might have seemed feasible on purely technical grounds. Economic factors 



II-5 



constrained plans which seemed environmentally acceptable; environmental 
concern prohibited financially reasonable alternatives in other cases. 
In no case was any solution an ideal one, fitting all of the criteria 
and limitations. 

The Recommendation 

An aviation plan recommendation was made by the Regional Airport Systems 
Study Committee at its June 2, 1972 meeting. It is the solution which 
in the Committee's judgment best accommodates the Region's needs and 
fairly reflects its wants. When adopted by the ABAG Executive Committee, 
the recommendation will become the Aviation Plan Element of the ABAG 
Regional Plan 1970:90 . Implementation will then be achieved through the 
ABAG grant review process and through the continuing coordination of 
involved groups and agencies. 



li-6 




Co 
C/> 

rn 



JO 
rn 



— 
CO o 

z 

Co > 



m 



> 










p 






O 




rt- 




< 


§ 




















-n 


v> 


fO 


C 






0> 







o 


o o 

CD 









"t o 




5" ^ 


O 












1 1-7 



AGENCIES AND ORGANIZATIONS 
PARTICIPATING IN THE REGIONAL AIRPORT SYSTEMS STUDY 



FAA (Federal Aviation Administration)* 

BCDC (Bay Conservation and Development Commission)* 

BARTD (Bay Area Rapid Transit District)* 

Business and Transportation Agency* 

Bay Area Council* 

State Department of Aeronautics* 

Department of Defense* 

MTC (Metropolitan Transportation Commission)* 
Federal Highway Administration* 
CAB (Civil Aeronautics Board) 

HUD (Department of Housing and Urban Development) 

BAAPCD (Bay Area Air Pollution Control District) 

airport managers 

airport land use commissions 

city and county planning departments 

PUC (California Public Utilities Commission) 

EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) 

Sierra Club 

League of Women Voters 

Save San Francisco Bay Association 

Air Transport Association 

President's Aviation Advisory Commission 

Save Our Valley Action Committee 

People for a Golden Gate National Recreation Area 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board 
U.S.G.S. (U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey) 



ex-officio members of the Regional Airport Systems Study Committee 



lf-8 



CHAPTER III 
TECHNICAL STUDIES 



The collection and analysis of data was a major part of the Regional 
Airport Systems Study, and was accomplished by various sub-contractors 
to the Committee. In this way, experts in each area of study contributed 
to the effort. 

Inventory 

The beginning was taking inventory of existing aviation facilities, in 
order to provide a starting point for future evaluations. The inventory 
presented this kind of picture: 

- There are 54 airports in the Region; 34 are for public use, 
5 are for military use, and 15 are restricted to private 
owners' use. (Inventory Report) 

- The three major airports are well located with respect to 
the population. (Inventory Report) 

- Urban expansion has put residential neighborhoods into close 
proximity to all three major airports. (Inventory Report) 

- Capacity of the existing airports exceeds present activity. 
(Capacity Report) 

- The existing civil airport system can operate to capacity 
without serious airspace congestion, but military operations 
at Alameda and Moffett can limit this capability. (Capacity 
Report) 

- In 1968, Bay Area airports accommodated: 

16 million passengers (up to 20 million in 1970) 
580 million pounds of cargo 
284 million pounds of mail 
400,000 commercial aircraft operations 

2.5 million general aviation operations 

(Forecast Report) 

- In 1968, passengers chose the following ground modes to airports: 

highway (personal auto) 88.6% 
transit (public vehicle) 11.4% 

(Access Report) 



III-l 



- In 1968, passengers used the airports to this extent: 



SFO 
OAK 
SJC 



82.4% 

n.i% 

6.5% 



(Forecast Report) 



- San Francisco County is currently the principal air passenger 
generator, followed by Santa Clara and Alameda Counties. 
(Forecast Report) 

- The largest single market area is Southern California, 
accounting for about 37% of all origins and destinations 
for air passenger traffic using Bay Area airports. The 
next largest markets are Washington/Oregon (9.4%) and 
New York/Newark (5.7%). (Forecast Report) 

- General aviation airports are well scattered throughout 
the Region, except for not being within easy reach of San 
Francisco and western Contra Costa County. (Inventory Report) 

- Many outlying areas depend on privately owned airports for 
general aviation. Permanence of these may be threatened by 
urbanization. (Inventory Report) 

- Several general aviation airports which were formerly 
military facilities could accommodate airline and business 
jet aircraft. (Inventory Report) 



Forecast, Access, and Capacity 

The first round of technical studies also included reports on aviation 
forecasts, airport access, and airport and airspace capacities. This work, 
done in mid-1970, was updated later to include new alternatives being 
considered and also to accommodate certain changes in information or 
assumptions. Supplemental reports were prepared for the access and 
capacity work, and new studies of forecasts were made. 

The Environment 

The second round of studies, done in 1971, emphasized environmental 
investigations. The environmental issues - air quality, noise, and land 
use - were treated on an equal basis with the more traditional study 
items of forecasting, access, capacity, and so forth, not as a tag-on 
effort after a decision had been reached. Public concern and response 
confirmed the need to devote a substantial amount of the study to these 
questions. 



III-2 



Economics 



Cost analysis and an evaluation of potential economic benefits completed 
the set of technical reports. Also done in 1971, they were another 
planning factor to be considered in the decision process. 

Issue Papers 

As the study developed, it became clear that each technical subject area 
was surrounded by assumptions and issues which had to be further explored. 
It was clear also that each area was not isolated, that there were 
connections, dependencies, and sometimes conflicts which had to be 
recognized and resolved. The staff therefore prepared a series of 
"Issue Papers" which summarized and interrelated the various subjects. 
These papers presented the assumptions and issues one by one so they 
could be accepted, modified, or rejected by the Committee as it attempted 
to judge both the validity of the technical work and the values and 
policies connected with it. 

As this process evolved, subjects other than those specifically covered 
by the technical reports were identified and also investigated through 
issue papers or memoranda. Some were suggested by the Committee, some 
by staff, and some by organizations or individuals at meetings and public 
hearings . 

Spread over a period of seven months, the issue papers responded to 
questions as they arose, and so provide a continuous documentation of 
the study process. They are included here as the working papers of 
the Regional Airport Systems Study Committee.* 



* Not all parts of the issue papers were accepted by the Committee and 
formalized into decision criteria or incorporated into the recommendation. 
Those elements which were are included in Chapters I and IV. 

Data or assumptions which have been revised since the issue papers were 
written are footnoted and can also be found in Chapters I and IV and in 
the appendices. 



1 1 1-3 



REGIONAL AIRPORT SYSTEMS STUDY PUBLICATIONS 



J 

Airport and Airspace Capacity Analysis , R. Dixon Speas Assoc., May 1970; 
supplementary report October 1971. 

A Airport Access , Wilbur Smith and Associates, June 1970; supplementary 
report October 1971. 

Aviation Forecast , Systems Analysis and Research Corp., May 1970 

Airport Inventory , Walter E. Gillfillan, Paul D. Spiegel, and Wilsey and 
Ham, July 1970. 

Summary Report , Phase I, August 1970. 

Aviation Effect on Air Quality in the Bay Region , Bay Area Air Pollution 
Control District, February 1971. 

Aviation Noise Evaluations and Projections for the Bay Region , Bolt, 
Beranek and Newman, September 1971. 

The Effect of Aviation on Physical Environment and Land Uses in the Bay 
Region , Wilsey and Ham, August 1971. 

Economic and Spatial Impact of Alternative Airport Locations , William 
Goldner (University of California) and Mitchell Research 
Associates, Inc., September 1971. 

Capital Cost Analysis of Airport Alternatives , Bechtel , Inc., October 1971. 

Airport Noise and Land Use Analysis , Paul K. Dygert, Judy A. Ungerer, and 
Fred L. Collins, October 1971. 

Public Hearing Testimony , November 1971 through February 1972. 



At the request of the Study Committee, the following report was also 
prepared for use in the study (not as a contracted report): 

A Dynamic Simulation Study of Air Traffic Capacity in the San Francisco 

Bay Terminal Area , Paul J. O'Brien, National Aviation Facilities 
Experimental Center (prepared for the Dept. of Transportation, 
Federal Aviation Administration), August 1971. 



III-4 



AVIATION FORECAST 



Travel demand forecasts are the major indication of what airport 
facilities are going to be needed in the future. Settling on the 
basis of such forecasting was perhaps the most fundamental and 
difficult part of the study. Yet, estimates are essential, and 
mis judgments can lead to facilities adding up to far too little or 
far too much. 

The forecasting dealt with various kinds of demands, including those 
of general aviation and of cargo, but it is the forecast of passengers 
that almost entirely governs the needed development of major airports. 

Passengers 

The forecasting procedure used consisted of computing future numbers 
of air passengers from factors to which numbers of passengers are 
known to be related: population, per capita income, and per capita 
employment. 

The initial report, submitted in May 1970, predicted demands as 
growing to 83.5 million passengers per year by 1985, as compared with 
roughly 20 million in 1970. This forecast was based on population 
and employment figures computed for the Bay Area Transportation Study 
Commission and income figures estimated by the contractor. At the 
time, the Committee felt that these assumptions were reasonable, or 
at least as valid as any others existing at that time. 

Then the 1970 census figures became available, indicating a substan- 
tially lower population growth rate. Shortly thereafter, the California 
Department of Finance published a population forecast in which the 
figures were significantly lower than those in previous forecasts. This 
brought the reliability of the initial aviation forecast into question. 

Independently, the sub-study on environment raised the question of 
whether unrestricted population growth was the most desirable planning 
basis. This viewpoint, as well as concern about the possibility of 
overestimating population growth, even if unrestricted, was strongly 
emphasized at the public hearings. 

As a result, the Committee ordered a recalculation of future travel 
demands, using different projections of population, and of income and 
employment as well. Calculations were run showing how forecasted 
travel demand would vary with different combinations of the three factors. 

Results ranged from 57.9 to 95.5 million passengers per year in 1985, 
depending upon the population growth rate, income, and employment values 
used . 



1 1 1-5 



As a basis for its plan, the Committee adopted the forecast based on 
the Department of Finance growth rate, with per capita income and 
employment unchanged from the initial forecast. This established a 
new planning base of 28 million passengers in 1975, 44 million in 1980, 
and 72 million in 1985. 



Cargo, Mail, and General Aviation 

Forecasts for cargo and general aviation, based in part on population, 
were revised downward to reflect the smaller Department of Finance 
figures. General aviation was also seen to be constrained by the lack 
of facilities available in some counties.* Mail cargo forecasts, 
developed by the contractor in consultation with the U.S. Postal Service, 
were adopted as originally forecasted. 



Predictabi 1 i ty 

These forecasts include the assumption that significant variations will 
not be brought about by dramatic changes in a variety of other influences - 
economic conditions, air travel cost and quality, rapid-rail competition, 
changes in people's life styles, to mention but a few. All these things 
contribute to the uncertainty. 



There is, however, a way to minimize the effects of such uncertainty. 
This is to regard any error in prediction - should that prove to be the 
case - as an error in time rather than in amount. If, for example, 
population turned out to grow faster than assumed, it would merely mean 
that the need to accommodate more passengers would appear a few years 
sooner than forecast. 



If the problem is looked at in this way, developments which take a long 
lead time can be planned in small stages, and starting dates for the later 
stages attuned to the actual, or more predictable, situation at that time. 

The Committee, by adopting the revised forecast, provided a basis for 
proceeding to take care of the relatively certain short-term needs while 
leaving flexibility in plans for meeting long-range projections. 



* Refer to Appendix A for a detailed breakdown of general aviation forecasts. 



1 1 1 -6 



AVIATION FORECAST* 
ASSUMPTIONS/ ISSUES PAPER 



INTRODUCTION 

What we believe the future demand for air transportation in the Bay Region 
will be is one of two principal factors which will be used to judge the 
adequacy of our present airport supply.** Because of this, major mis- 
judgments in demand could find the Bay Region far short or over-built for 
meeting future public requirements. 

If a common fault could be found with past attempts by airport owners, 
the airline industry, and the federal government to project demand, it 
has been to overestimate air cargo and underestimate air passenger travel. 
In defense, it can also be said that no-one failed to sense how large the 
passenger markets might become; rather, the error was in judging when 
that might happen. 

When considering approval actions, financing, design, and construction, 
the lead-time necessary to create additional airport facilities can vary 
from three years for small projects to eight to ten years for major 
additions or new airport sites. These long lead-times make the forecast 
a very important part of the study effort. 

REPORT SUMMARY 

The report provides a review of past air travel in and out of the Bay Region 
and a projection for the years 1975, 1980, and 1985 for the following: 

- air passengers 

- air cargo 

- air mail 

- general aviation ownership 

- commercial and general aviation aircraft activity levels 

The process used is fully documented and can be reproduced with data readily 
available. But, perhaps more important, the process can be checked against 
actual experience and, where it might fail to reflect that experience, can 
be reviewed in detail to identify the specific fault. 



* Prepared for the Regional Airport Systems Study Committee November 5, 1971 

* The other is airport capacity. 



III-7 



The process for projecting air passengers began with the past trends in 
air travel demand. It identified population, per capita income, and 
total employment as the factors that have had the most significant relation- 
ship to air passengers in the Bay Region during the ten -year period 1959- 
1968. The process then used population and employment forecasts made for 
the Region by the Bay Area Transportation Study Commission (BATSC), plus 
an income projection by the contractor. These were combined to form the 
projection of passengers for 1975, 1980, and 1985 for 98 different zones 
in the Region. 

A similar process for air cargo was utilized which used employment, income, 
and the cost of air cargo service. 

The number of flights required to carry the projected passengers was 
estimated based upon the proportion of each type of aircraft. The aircraft 
load factors varied among markets 20% - 70%, depending upon the external 
market being served. 

Finally, the analysis of general aviation found no factors which had 
historically influenced growth. Instead, it identified the "truth" that 
where there are airports, there are airplane owners; where there are no 
airports, there are few owners. A prediction was made using the existing 
airport availability. In addition, an estimating procedure was developed 
which may be able to predict how the provision of a new airport may 
stimulate additional aircraft ownership. 

ASSUMPTIONS 

A forecast process that tries to systematically identify factors that cause 
air travel (or any other activity, for that matter) and then attempts to 
forecast what those individual factors will do, necessarily depends upon an 
interlocking series of assumptions: 

1 . The population and employment projections made by BATSC for the Bay 
Region are valid. 

2. The income projections made by Systems Analysis and Research Corp. 
are valid. 

3. The historical relationship between air passengers and population, income, 
and employment will also be valid for the period through 1985. 

4. The destination points outside the Bay Region will continue to generate 
and receive about the same proportion of travel as at present. 



+ Refer to Appendix B for revised projections. 



III-8 



5. The proportion of connecting traffic will remain at about 15% of the 
total Bay Region traffic. 

6. A business recession will affect passenger growth through 1975. 

7. Personal travel will increase based upon discretionary income and 
leisure time. 

8. Airport congestion will have some negative effect until 1975. 

9. There will be no significant competition with air travel by trains 
before 1985. 

10. Much more non-stop service from the Bay Area will be available in the 
future. 

11. Until 1985, the stimulation of new air travel due to new technology will 
be minimal . 

ISSUES 

1. In view of the recent concern for the environment, is the 1965-67 BATSC 
n onulation forecast of 7.5 million people in the nine counties by 1990 
still valid? Recent population forecasts released by the California 
Dent, of Finance (DOF) show a significant difference from ours: 



COUNTY 


U.S. Census 
1970 (000) 


1975 


DOF 
1980 


1985 


1975 


RASS 
1980 


1985 


Alameda 


1073 


1130 


1206 


1289 


1293 


1420 


1548 


Contra Costa 


558 


614 


686 


772 


705 


822 


949 


Mari n 


206 


227 


259 


296 


255 


308 


358 


Nana 


79 


88 


102 


124 


86 


104 


122 


San Francisco 


716 


698 


708 


714 


789 


807 


817 


San Mateo 


556 


582 


613 


645 


670 


738 


831 


Santa Clara 


1065 


1216 


1384 


1572 


1204 


1435 


1606 


Solano 


170 


177 


199 


239 


232 


307 


311 


Sonoma 


205 


234 


275 


320 


238 


281 


324 


TOTAL 


4628 


4962* 


5432* 


5970* 


5472 


6222 


6866 



* Does not include 50,000 military personnel 



1 1 1-9 



2. The most recent Federal Aviation Administration forecasts for 1971 
to 1980 indicate an average domestic passenger growth rate of 12%, 
which is very similar to the RASS projection. 

3. The airline industry has suffered several years of reduced growth rate 
and declining traffic. While their unpublished forecast for the Bay 
Area in 1969 generally agreed with ours, a recent reappraisal by the 
industry will probably be lower. 

4. Recent work by William Goldner at the University of California produced 
another forecast of income for the Region. This newer forecast is 
different for several counties from that shown by SARC. 

5. The new generation has more discretionary income and time, marries later 
(or not at all), has fewer children, and has less "fear" of flying. Can 
historical extrapolations still be valid? 

6. The 1 effect on passenger travel of a reduction in population growth may 
be in part offset by the additive effects of employment and income. 
While the population of the Region in 1970 is 1.8 times that of 1950, 
the number of air passengers has increased 10 times during that time 
period. This indicates that air passenger growth is affected to a much 
greater extent by income and employment than by population alone, as is 
reflected in the equation used in the forecast report. Recent predictions 
of a reduction in population growth rate in the future do not necessarily 
assume a corresponding reduction in per capita employment or income. 

San Francisco Bay Area 

Population Total Air Passengers Passengers/1000 Populatior 

1950 2,681,322 2,000,000 746 

1960 3,638,939 5,000,000 1380 

1970 4,628,000 20,000,000 4320 

7. The forecast predicts that a larger amount than the current 50% of cargo 
will be carried on all -cargo flights by 1985. Because of the high cargo 
capability of passenger aircraft, however, all -cargo flights may be a 
lower proportion than that predicted. 

8. Load factors for passenger aircraft may improve in the future from the 
current 50% level. If so, the number of annual operations will be reduced. 



111-10 



COMMERCIAL AVIATION PASSENGER FORECASTING* 



TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 



INTRODUCTION 



Predicting the number of passengers who will want to use Bay Area airports 
in the future is a first step in the formation of an airport systems plan. 
Because of the long lead-times necessary for airport development, it is 
essential to the planning process to find as dependable a means for doing 
so as possible. Yet, any method, used to arrive at such a basic and 
important planning consideration, is highly fallible. For this reason, it 
is necessary to understand the method that was used in the Regional Airport 
Systems Study and to be aware of the limits and terms of its application. 

This paper follows the development of the forecast equation by the con- 
tractor, Systems Analysis and Research Corp., and discusses its assump- 
tions and bases. It then uses the equation to analyze the effects of 
alternate inputs for population, employment, and income in response to 
more current evaluations of their values, and indicates what these 
effects may mean for a Bay Area aviation plan. 

ARRIVING AT A FORMULA 

A forecasting methodology must take into consideration the great number 
of factors which determine the level of air traffic demand, combine the 
effects of these various factors, and give relative weights to their 
influence. This was done in this study by looking at available data and 
determining historical relationships. Informed judgment plays an important 
role in this determination, for there are many factors affecting demand for 
which direct statistical correlation is impossible to evaluate: the economic 
level of areas outside the Region, tourism and markets, access availability 
and ease, capacity limitations, service levels and quality. 

If the formula arrived at is to be valid for future projections, it must 
reflect probable changes in future conditions and trends. Therefore, 
adjustment factors for each of the target years - 1975, 1980, and 1985 - 
were incorporated into it. These adjustments were derived from a number 
of very predictive assumptions. The following areas, in which assumptions 
were made for inclusion in the equation, indicate the complexity of the 
problem and the extent of possible error: 



* Prepared for the Regional Airport Systems Study Committee February 17, 1972 



III-ll 



- national and international economy 

- national air traffic growth patterns 

- number and location of markets 

- tourism 

- technological development of aviation; aircraft types 
and mix 

- competing modes of transportation 

- air travel cost and quality 

- access and capacity 

- flying patterns; percentage of business travel, origin 
and destination from home or work 

- spending patterns and the use of discretionary income 
and leisure time 

The question which then remains is whether, even as adjusted, the historical 
extrapolations are valid and the formula is capable of prediction within a 
meaningful range. 

THE INDEPENDENT VARIABLES 

The equation as finally formulated has three independent variables: 
population, employment, and income.* 

Population is an important factor for determining the traffic generating 
capability of an area, and also for deflating the other independent 
variables. Income measures the economic ability of residents to use air 
service, while employment indicates high "employment areas" from and to 
which business travel is likely to occur. (Business travellers currently 
make up at least 50% of the total airline passenger traffic enplaned and 
deplaned at Bay Area airports.) 

As Aviation Forecast points out, "Independent variables used in the 
correlation equation are of little value for projection purposes if the 
future values of these variables cannot themselves be accurately forecast." 
As the three most single important indicators of air passenger growth, 
the nature of the Bay Area's population, employment, and income is very 
significant. Estimations of their values must be as reliable as possible. 

THE SENSITIVITY RUNS 

In the past, population growth has been found to follow fairly well- 
definable trend lines, as have long-term economic growth conditions. 
Future extrapolation, however, is complicated by factors not applicable 
to any great extent before. Primary among these is the growing concern 



* While population, employment, and income are treated here as "independent" 
variables, it is highly probable, that they themselves are related, although 
we do not know just how. 



1 1 1-1 2 



with environmental quality and the resulting desire for population growth 
control. It is possible that personal preferences concerning population 
size will decidedly influence future growth rates. Many people feel also 
that it is no longer sufficient to merely predict growth patterns; trends 
must now be consciously guided by policy decisions and implementation. 
Similarly, the distribution of the population, the location of residential 
and employment centers, recreation areas, and open space are seen to be 
subject to specific determination. Thus, future patterns will possibly, 
although not certainly, change to an extent that could mean substantial 
alterations in any present forecasts. 

For this reason, it is necessary to anticipate the possible variations 
in population, employment, and income, and apply them to the forecast 
model in order to perceive their effects on air passenger growth. The 
original application of the model used population and employment figures 
computed by the Bay Area Transportation Study Commission (BATSC) in 1965, 
and income figures estimated by the contractor. The more recent 1970 
census, and the revisions of population forecasts for the Bay Area made 
by the State of California Department of Finance imply that changes are 
indeed occurring. Testimony received at its public hearings by the 
Regional Airport Systems Study Committee from many different sources, 
including the Air Transport Association, also indicated opinions of a 
trend toward less growth in the Bay Area than the original evaluation. 

Therefore, a number of sensitivity runs for 1985 were done with different 
combinations of the independent variables. One important consideration 
to keep in mind is that "improvement in the quality of life" generally 
implies a decrease in population growth, but not necessarily a 
corresponding decrease or slowing of economic activity. Calculations 
were, therefore, also done where population decreased but per capita 
employment and/or income increased. Since the forecast equation weighs 
income relatively heavily, the results where its value is high are 
particularly interesting. 

Twenty-two initial calculations were completed for 1985. Some included 
combinations of the variables which are not too likely to occur, but 
which are useful as outer limits against which to compare: 95.5 million 
annual passengers was the upper limit achieved and 57.9 million the lower. 
The original estimate arrived at and used throughout the study's contract 
work was 83.5 million. 

The following table summarizes some of the calculations run and compares 
them with the original base run forecast for 1985.* 



* See Appendix B for details of the forecast equation and calculations. 



111-13 



TABLE I 
Brief Comparisons 



Using BATSC Population and: 

- An increase of per capita employment and income by 5% = 

Increase of total annual passengers by 6.1 million 

- A decrease of per capita employment and income by 10% = 

Decrease of total annual passengers by 12 million 

Using Dept. of Finance Population and: 

- No change in per capita employment and income = 

Decrease of total annual passengers by 11 million 

- A slight decrease in per capita employment and income (less than 5%) = 

Decrease of total annual passengers by 14.8 million 

- A slight decrease in per capita employment (less than 5%) and an 
increase in per capita income by 10-15% = 

Increase of total annual passengers by 2.7 million 

Using 1970 Census Population (zero population growth) and: 

- No change in per capita employment and income = 

Decrease of total passengers by 25.6 million 

- An increase in per capita employment and income by approximately 30% = 

Increase of total annual passengers by 12 million 



It was assumed by the contractor in the projection of the original income 
figures used in the base run that there will, in the future, be a long-term 
trend toward normalization; that is, income levels of the lower income 
groups will grow at a faster rate than income levels of the higher 
income groups. The extent to which this does in fact occur will have 
considerable effect upon passenger growth. If per capita income increases 
and also is redistributed so that more people have more discretionary in- 
come and, concurrently, leisure time, more people will be likely to fly. 
The sensitivity runs which reflect higher per capita income do not 
necessarily reflect this possible redistribution, making it possible that 
their products are low. 



111-14 



The results of the calculations indicate that population growth control 
is in itself insufficient for controlling air passenger growth. Per 
capita employment and income are weighed relatively heavily in the fore- 
casting equation. Questions surrounding economic development and the 
meaning of "quality of life" will also have to be resolved. 

Given the uncertainties of the formula itself, as well as those of its 
independent variables, of what value is such forecasting? The calculations 
range from 57.9 million to 95.5 million annual passengers, with numerous 
intermediate variations. When it is considered that 1970 enplanements 
and deplanements were approximately 1.6 million for San Jose Municipal 
Airport, 2 million for Oakland International Airport, and 14 million for 
San Francisco International Airport, the differences between these products 
are seen to be quite significant in terms of airport systems planning. 

The Air Transport Association report* discusses this problem and concludes 
as follows: 

Confidence levels in these forecasts should be related to 
probable time bands, rather than to the traffic percentage 
ranges as of a particular time usually used. This way of 
viewing the confidence range in the forecast is prompted 
by the long lead-times in airport planning and the rapid 
rates of growth in air traffic. For example, if two domestic 
passenger traffic forecasts were to differ by 20% for 1985 - 
an apparently large disagreement - the actual difference with 
traffic growing 10% annually, would be that the higher fore- 
cast would project a particular level of traffic that would 
be attained in 1984, while the lower one would expect the same 
level in 1986. In an airport's long-range planning for 
expansion, such a variation would be a matter of fine-tuning 
the timing of later development phases. As a practical matter, 
this would be done anyway, based on actual experience 
accumulated during the course of the next decade. 

This "sliding time scale" approach seems to be a practical means of handling 
the uncertainties of prediction. Within the scope of a regional systems 
plan, the possible time variation may well be more than a case of two 
years and "fine-tuning" adjustment. This is more a matter of degree than 
basic approach, however. While long lead-time is essential, incremental 
development of facilities allows for the re-evaluation and revision of plans 
as factual data replaces some of the problems of long-term projection. 



* A.T.A. Airline Airport Demand Forecasts, San Francisco/Oakland Report , 
pages 5-6. 



111-15 



* 




ACCESS 



The access sub-study dealt in detail with available and planned access 
facilities and with the different travel modes which are or could be 
used in airport access. Data was collected concerning the origins and 
destinations of passengers, the travel distances which are necessary, 
the choice of ground travel mode, and the decisions which passengers in 
the various areas of the Bay Region would make if they had free choice 
of which airport to use. 

Al location 

The Committee found that the allocation of passengers among airports is 
an integral part of the ground access question. Allocation of passengers 
depends on two factors: 1) the airline service at each airport and 2) the 
accessibility of each airport. Passengers tend to choose the airport site 
which is closest (in distance or time) to them, and will not utilize 
remote airports unless they are the only locations where particular flights 
are available. This means that if an airport location is too removed in 
the passenger's view, then the passenger must be compelled, through service 
scheduling, to use it in order to fulfill its capacity, If this were not 
done, remote airports would lie largely unused and the sites located close 
to the urban centers would have too great a demand placed on their capacity. 

The Committee had to consider the question of passenger convenience in 
deciding whether or not to locate airports so that "compelled" utilization 
would be necessary. It also had to determine whether such airline 
scheduling was possible. 

Civil Aeronautics Board 

The Study Committee met several times with the Civil Aeronautics Board in 
connection with the scheduling problem. At these meetings, the Committee 
was told that while the CAB does have the statutory power to certificate 
certain airlines to serve certain airports, it has historically granted 
service to the Bay Area (all three airports) as one service point. Only 
recently has it issued certificates specifically designating which of the 
three airports in the Region are to be served. Further, the Board cannot 
compel a carrier to serve an airport in a certain way if the carrier has 
been granted open rights at all airports. 

Once certification is granted, it can be altered or amended only through 
a judicial process, meaning that the outcome cannot be determined before 
the long hearing process is finished. The Committee was therefore assured 
of no definite help if it decided on an airport alternative which included 
sites not easily accessible and not readily chosen by the air passengers. 



111-17 



Environment and Economics 



Access raises not only technical questions, but also economic and 
environmental questions of prime importance. Outlying sites could 
impose on the Region's air travellers extra travel costs in time and 
money. Construction of rapid transit to remote sites would be less 
likely than construction to closer locations because of the extremely 
high cost (approximately $20 million per mile). That means that the 
automobile would be the prime access mode, and this would add tons of 
pollutants per day to the atmosphere. Emissions from automobiles 
going to and from the airports are a major part (about one-third) of 
aviation-related air pollution. 

Decisions 

All of these problems, then, had to be considered: travel times, costs, 
passenger convenience, air service scheduling, the relationship of 
access and capacity, and the tradeoffs between access and environmental 
quality. The conflicts here were often substantial. At the same time, 
a great misjudgment in this area would mean the possibility of over- 
or under-util ization of airports and a resulting airport system which 
was neither convenient nor functional. 



1 11-18 



CAPACITY 



The adequacy of an airport system depends on the ability of its airport 
and airspace capacity to meet aviation demand. A detailed analysis of 
capacity was therefore undertaken early in the study to provide a picture 
of needed facilities. 

Capacity Measurement 

Hourly capacities of facilities can be determined fairly easily. Overall, 
or annual capacities introduce uncertainties because of the many factors 
which must be taken into account: possible operating procedures, conflicts 
among airports, peak times and delays, air traffic control. The uncertainty 
is especially true in attempting to determine the capacities of proposed 
airport systems. 

Capacity Requirements 

The more difficult problem, however, is deciding what capacity will be 
needed in addition to that at hand. This is done by translating the demand 
forecast - numbers of passengers and tons of cargo - into numbers of oper- 
ations. Included in this translation are the factors of aircraft mix 
(the sizes and carrying capabilities of aircraft used) and aircraft 
occupancy (the extent to which the aircraft used are "filled"). Smaller 
planes and low occupancy, for example, will mean a greater number of 
necessary operations, and a greater burden on the capacity of the system. 

In the capacity reports, the original aviation forecasts were used. In 
addition, a low figure for passenger seat factor was assumed (47% occupancy). 
As discussed earlier, the aviation forecast was revised. Similarly, the 
validity of the seat factor was challenged at the public hearings. People 
expressed a strong interest in seeing a more efficient use of aircraft, 
which would mean a reduced need for airport and airspace capacity and 
therefore less airport development. 

Seat Factor 

The Committee worked with the concept of the "airport utilization factor" 
as a possible method for measuring efficient utilization of aircraft and, 
consequently, airports. (See the following issue papers for explanation 
of this concept.) It chose, however, seat factor (the average number of 
seats occupied divided by the number of seats available) as the best 
indicator of efficient use, and adopted a 60% average aircraft seat factor 
figure.* Recalculation of needed capacities from the new demand figures 



* Refer to Appendix B for more detailed information about seat factor and 
numbers of operations. 



111-19 



and the new seat factor produced a substantially lower number of required 
aircraft operations. It was also assumed that only 60% of the cargo by 
1985 would be carried on all -cargo flights [rather than the 85% assumed 
by the contractor), requiring fewer all-cargo aircraft. Combined with 
the larger aircraft coming into use, this improved utilization allows a 
3h times growth in air passengers with only a 2-fold increase in air- 
craft operations. While there is no direct means of requiring airlines 
to achieve the 60'-. seat factor figure, facilities will not be available 
for the larger number of operations which a lower seat factor would 
necessitate. 



Ill -20 



AIRPORT ACCESS* 



ASSUMPTIONS/ ISSUES PAPER 



INTRODUCTION 

As the time of air travel to distant points has decreased in the "Jet Age," 
the proportion of the total trip time devoted to ground travel to and from 
the airport has increased - increased to the extent that it has become a 
major concern to the traveling public. 

As we attempt to foresee the future aviation demand in the Bay Region and 
the accompanying airport capacity requirements, we must look at the ability 
of our ground transportation systems to service the air capacity. In doing 
this, a major concept comes into focus: ground accessibility together with 
airline service level determine how air travel passenger demand is allo- 
cated from zones of origin or destination to soecific airports. 

The purpose of this paper is to look at the many implications of this 
accessibility/allocation concept, and to discuss the assumptions and issues 
which must be carefully considered by the Committee in its decision-making 
process . 

REPORT SUMMARY 

With the assistance of the transportation agencies in the Bay Area, a ground 
access network of the principal highway and transit routes that connect each 
of the 98 forecast zones to the airport alternatives being considered was 
developed. (This p rocess W ould also allow additional alternatives which the 
Committee may identify to be connected.) Passengers were allocated over the 
transportation system from their zone of origin or destination to the 
nearest airport via the minimum cost path. 

This process often placed more passengers at an airport than could be 
accommodated according to the airport capacity estimates made for the 
RASS Committee by R. Dixon Speas and Associates.** When this occurred, a 
further analysis was made that indicated how the airline service would have 
to be restricted at particular airports in order to force passengers to 
make their choice of airport, not on the basis of accessibility alone, but 
also on the service available. This process suggested how new airport 
capacity might be effectively utilized to prevent overloading at other airports 



* Prepared for the Regional Airport Systems Study Committee November 5, 1971. 
** See Chart 1 . 



1 11-21 



In addition, the airport access road capacity necessary to service the 
airoort capacity was analyzed, as were airport parking requi rements . 

It should be noted that there are two reports which comprise this portion 
of the study - one done in Phase I and the other in Phase II as a supplement 
to investigate the additional airoort alternatives being considered by the 
RASS Committee. The two reports discuss work, airoort business, and cargo 
truck trips made to airports as well as passenger trios. General aviation 
access was also included. 

ASSUMPTIONS 

In the ground access work, we are dealing with a fifteen year projection into 
the future. To do so requires a sizeable number of assumptions, some of 
which are easily accepted based uoon our personal experience with access 
problems. Others will be debatable. Because the actual process of passenger 
allocation depends uoon these assumptions, they should be carefully reviewed 
and understood. 

+ 1 . This access work uses the 1 985 demand forecast made by Systems Analysis 
and Research Corporation in 1969/70. 

2. When airline service is equivalent, an air passenger will choose an airport 
based upon the minimum time/cost route from where he is to where he wants to 

3. There is a difference between "demand" and "travel." Demand is always 
there, while travel only occurs when service is provided, and varies 
according to the level of service. 

4. The major highway and transit routings to and from the airoorts will have 
adequate capacity in 1985 and so will not be a constraining factor. 

+ 5. By 1985, 95^ of the passengers will have a choice of airport, with only 
5'.- restricted by airline service patterns. 

6. BART will be extended directly to each major airport site: 

to Oakland 1975-80 
to San Francisco 1980-85 
to San Jose by 1985 
There will be bus connections between Oakland and BART and between San 
Francisco and BART by 1972. 

+ 7. In the selection of transportation mode to the airport, only 13-18% 
of air passengers will choose transit. 

8. A traveller by automobile values his time at $9 an hour, while a transit 
rider values his time at $8 an hour. 

+ 9. The Southern Crossing will be built by 1985. This assumption was made in 
1969 when the Division of Bay Toll Crossings was well into the project, with 
the design nearly completed. Since then, however, ' construction is more in 
question due to the appearance of strong opposition to the plan, and a 
referendum has been imposed by the State Legislature. 



+ Refer to Chapter 1 discussion of Access for revisions. 

111-22 



10. The deficiencies which were identified in capacity of airport access 
roads and parking will be corrected as necessary so they do not constrain 
the use of the airDort capacity. 

11. Helicopter or other special air vehicles are not included in the access 
considerations . 

ISSUES 

From what seems like a very mundane subject comes a surprising set of issues, 
many of which involve action and authority well beyond the RASS Committee. 

1. The use of 18 r " as the maximum proportion of air passengers using transit 
is based upon experience in other locations in the U.S. and abroad. 
There are several unique characteristics of our local situation which 
could significantly alter the proportion of passengers using transit: 

- BART is a new, 75 mile, high speed, comfortable, 
comprehensive system. 

- While the door-to-airport travel time may favor the 
automobile, transit's absolute, regular, dependable 
service at all times of day may prove more attractive 
to the airport passenger as he deals with airline 
schedules. Highway use may also restrict airport 
access or substantially increase ground travel times 
in the future. 

- 35°^ of the Bay Region's air passengers represent 
"California Corridor" traffic. These passengers are 
more likely to use transit for access because of the 
short-haul nature of their trips. 

If a higher proportion of passengers than the 18% suggested do choose 
transit, then direct transit connections will have to be capable of 
handling this traffic. 

2. The ability of the highway systems in the Bay Region to move future traffic 
demands at reasonable service levels (speeds and delays) is critical to the 
airport access question. This issue is related to the availability of the 
Southern Crossing and even more basically to the population of the Region 
by 1985. 

3. Airport sites that are remote from the urban core present a dilemma. A 
principal reason for the consideration of these new sites is to avoid the 
urban problems of congestion, lack of space, and negative environmental 
impact. Yet, our experience at Dulles Airport in Washington D.C. and at 
other places is that people will use the closest airport unless forced 

by scheduling to do otherwise. 



1 11-23 



4. There is only one market today in which passengers have a free choice of 
airDorts. In that market, a review of the passenger distribution among 
the Bay Area airports is somewhat different from what our 95 3 - choice 
distribution would imnly. 

5. The use of airline service points and scheduling patterns to effectively 
utilize capacity is not a new concent. The actual accomplishment of 

that process, through the coordinative efforts of a committee such as RASSC, 
the Civil Aeronautics Board, the Public Utilities Commission, and the 
airlines, is. This question is usually set aside by a study group as 
being outside its field of resnonsibilitv. 

6. The actual application of the allocation process presented in the access 
work will lead the Committee to allocate passenger activity to specific 
airport alternatives. These allocations mav conflict with local airport 
pi ans . 

7. Generally, in the provision of airline service, passengers have come to 
the aircraft, rather than the aircraft to the passengers. That is no 
longer true in the "California Corridor" market, where expanded airline 
service has come to more airports. We are saying that an even larger 
proportion of Passengers will have a choice of airport in the ^uture 

(up to 951- of the passengers by 1 985 } . This may directly conflict with 
what the airlines might prefer. 

8. Given the factors discussed in numbers 5, 6, and 7, then, how can it be 
assured for any chosen airport alternative that the passenger allocation 
process will provide utilization of that alternative's capacity? 

9. Is there a minimum airport size for which transit connections should be 
assured? 

10. Within the constraints of safety and financial feasibility, should service 
to the public take precedence over the convenience of airlines in 
determining the allocation of passengers among airports? 

11. How should capital cost of highway and transit extensions which serve 
an airport be allocated? 

12. Should a given accessibility to a general aviation airport be assured for 
all urban and rural portions of the Region? 

13. Highway capacity must be available to accommodate mail and air cargo for 
future airports. 



1 1 1-24 



Chart 1 



o 
> 

D 
> 

a 



o 
m 

> 
z 
o 



®M 5 

\ 



§111 
1 / 



F 1 

ro 
(0 




*jB» 



CO 



o 



C7I 



o 
m 

> 
o 







fig; 8 

IT 

t. -A 

•>; : ° 



«3 



S OJ 
OJ 



■ - ■ 



v 



— jji 



HI" 



BBS 



(a 



•J 




, Kg - 



m ^ 
3] 



i 



ir 

flap 



o 



o 



OJ 



o 
m 

> 

o 



.... 



s«4S?«3 — 

■A ri : < M. CO 
■ ' i t i 



m 




/ 



1ST 

ml* 



N 



ro 



o 
m 
S 

2 

o 



J 



o 



sill- 



,\ 

($W& to 

o 
- 

v 



o 




lay 



a, 



J 



rani- 

V l "" I 



SkKSt'I^b -j 



M$sft to 



CO 

c 
O 



1 11-25 



AIRPORT AND AIRSPACE CAPACITY* 



ASSUMPTIONS/ ISSUES PAPER 



INTRODUCTION 

A previous issue paper described the forecast work as one of two principal 
factors which will be used to judge the adequacy of our present airports. 
This paper is about the other factor - capacity. Starting in the early 
1960 's, there has been an increasing concern about the ability of our 
major air terminal areas to accommodate aviation growth. Delays due to 
peak air traffic demands have caused congestion and hence concern about 
the sufficiency of capacity at New York, Washington D.C., Chicago, and 
Los Angeles. San Francisco, by comparison, has had minor problems to 
date. It is the concern about future demand, based upon the experience 
of these other locations, that brings the capacity subject into a major 
position in this study. 

REPORT SUMMARY 

Two capacity analyses were done - one for ai rport runway capacity, the 
other for airspace capacity. 

Airport capacity analysis techniques used in the report were developed for 
the Federal Aviation Administration in the mid-1960's by the Regional Airport 
Systems Study contractor. The analysis procedure has been validated against 
actual airport operations, and provides a relatively quick way to forecast the 
capability of airports in terms of an hourly and a yearly capacity. 

Two processes were used in the study in the analysis of airspace capacity. 
One is a fast-time computer simulation and the other is a real-time simulation 
technique. The fast-time simulation was used by the RASS contractor. 

This computer technique is fast, relatively inexpensive, and can be quickly 
recycled to test new alternatives. The real-time process was done for the 
Bay Area by the Federal Aviation Administration, at the request of the RASSC* 
It does not rely upon assumptions and therefore more realistically represents 
actual controller/pi lot/aircraft performance. It does take time to accomplish 
and is expensive. 



* Prepared for the Regional Airport Systems Study Committee December 1971. 

* A Dynamic Simulation Study of Air Traffic Capacity in the San Francisco 
Bay Terminal Area , Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Admin- 
istration, National Aviation Facilities Experimental Center, August 1971. 



1 1 1-26 



The report describes the detail of the input information used at each 
airport and applies a capacity estimating technique. Airport runway 
capacities are then developed for: 



1) The existing general aviation airport runway systems 

2) The publicly owned general aviation airports fully developed 
according to presently adopted master plans 

3) San Francisco, Oakland, and San Jose airports according to 
their existing runway systems 

4) San Francisco airport with one additional runway; Oakland 
Airport with one, two, and three additional runways 

5) New major airline airports at Agnew/Alviso (Site E) and 
Hoi lister 

6) Joint use civil /military airports at Hamilton AFB and Travis AFB 

7) STOL operations in San Francisco (at China Basin), Richmond 
(Point Isabel), and at the San Carlos, Concord, and Livermore 
Airports 

Measures of Aircraft Capacity 

The capacity of an airport's runways to accommodate aircraft is 
expressed on both an hourly basis (Practical Hourly Capacity - 
PHOCAP) and an annual basis (Practical Annual Capacity - PANCAP).* 
The annual capacity value is based upon specific hourly and daily 
variations. If, for example, the peak hour rate of 74 operations 
per hour for San Francisco Airport were sustained for 24 hours per 
day, 365 days per year, San Francisco Airport could theoretically 
accommodate 650,000 annual operations instead of the 370,300 shown 
in the report. The 370,300 reflects the fact that the actual 
operations respond to the hourly, daily, and seasonal variations in 
the public's demand for air travel services. 

Based on our experience with other transportation problems, however, 
we know that travellers will eventually respond to the delays that 
occur during peak traffic periods by redistributing their time of 
travel. Though it is unlikely that full redistribution will occur, 
adjustments of passenger demand and airline scheduling can change 
the annual use. Consequently, annual capacity values should not 
be taken as absolutely fixed values. 



* It should be noted that capacities developed in the Phase I capacity 
report have been revised in Phase II to reflect the change in FAA 
air traffic spacing procedures for smaller aircraft following large 
jets. The spacing distance requirement changed from a 3 mile 
separation to a 5 mile, due to wake turbulence. 



111-27 



Measures of Passenger Capacity 

By converting the annual runway aircraft capacity of an airport, 
into an annual passenger capacity, we add two additional variables - 
size of aircraft in the traffic mix, and the passenger load factor. 
By changing the percentage of large aircraft in the mix, and/or 
changing the load factors, we can cause great differences in the 
number of passengers that 370,300 annual operations can produce. 
By combining the variability of annual operations, aircraft mix, 
and load factor, the number of passengers that theoretically can 
be accommodated varies over a wide range. 

General aviation airport capacity, as depicted by proposed airport 
development plans, would nearly equal the demand of 11 million 
annual operations projected for 1985, if_ there were a redistribution 
of demand to some of the outlying airports and if some of the 
airports that are now privately owned remain available for public 
use. Again, hourly capacity values and therefore annual operations 
may increase as the peak traffic periods and delay levels redistribute. 

Airspace Capacity 

The work done by both the RASSC contractor and the FAA identifies a 
negative impact of larger operations at Oakland International Airport 
upon the Naval Air Station, Alameda. 

The airspace work done by the RASSC contractor would indicate an airspace 
conflict in the South Bay area if each of the existing airports was to 
expand to a maximum size. The FAA work avoids this conflict with San Jose 
departures by assuming two-segment approach procedures into Oakland and 
San Jose Airports. With the capability of "Area Navigation"** and two- 
segment glide slope, it appears that airspace capacity would not be a limiting 
factor to future demand. It should be noted, however, that this would: 

1) require positively controlled airspace in at least the 
central portion of the Bay 

2) virtually remove or limit the IFR capability of general 
aviation airports located in the central Bay Area 

3) have a limiting effect upon military airport capacity at 
Alameda and Moffett 

4) have some implications with respect to overflight noise in 
the Bay Region 



* A separate "issue paper" on general aviation discusses this matter further. 

** Would not require flight paths over specific ground navigation facilities, 
but would rather allow free choice of aircraft routings. 



111-28 



ASSUMPTIONS 



The following assumptions were used in the capacity work. These should 
be carefully reviewed by the Regional Airport Systems Study Committee. 

1. The future pattern of runway usage will remain the same as the current 
pattern . 

2. "Area Navigation" in terminal areas will be in use by 1985. 

3. Two-segment glide slope capability was not assumed by the RASSC 
contractor and was by the FAA analysis. 

4. Service levels of 4 minutes average delay for airline aircraft 
departures (varying from about 0-20 minutes) and 2 minutes for 
general aviation aircraft departures are reasonable service levels. 

+5. An airport with 747 type aircraft in its traffic mix will have 
about 77 passengers per aircraft operation and those without the 
large aircraft will have about 64 passengers per operation. * 

6. At airports where airline and general aviation share the same 
runways, airline use is given precedence. 

7. General aviation airport future capacity was based upon the 
development shown on their current master plans. 

ISSUES 

From these assumptions and findings come the following issues: 

1. Can airline air traffic be given precedence over military and other 
civilian traffic when conflicts in airspace use occur? 

2. Will the new technology represented by area navigation and two-segment 
approach slopes be available by 1985? 

3. a) Should a control of peak-hour scheduling and a more uniform utili- 

zation during the hours and days of the week be established? 
b) Should such scheduling be at the discretion of each airline, or will 
some larger control and enforcement be necessary? If the latter, 
who should do it and how? 

4. Should load factor criteria be established to measure the need for new 
facilities? Who shall insure implementation and how? 

5. Which has precedence - capacity or noise abatement? 



* These numbers reflect the aircraft mix shown in the Forecast report, an 
average load factor of about 50%, and an allowance for non-passenger- 
carrying, training, positioning, and all -cargo flights. 

+ Refer to Appendix B for revisions. 



1 1 1-29 



6. Can both capacity and noise abatement problems be at least partly 
solved by the reduced number of aircraft operations resulting from 
more efficient use of aircraft and airports? Again, who can control 
this use? 

7. Can peak-hour general aviation training flights be diverted to other 
areas? 

8. Will airline and general aviation instrument training flights still 
be able to use Bay Area airports in the future? 

9. Should airspace used for general aviation VFR training be reserved? 

10. How extensive will the future FAA-designated positive Terminal Control 

Areas be in the Ray Area? 

11. Should military flights have to comply with the same capacity and noise 
abatement procedures as the civilian traffic? Can this be assured? 

12. Does STOL offer enough potential benefits to warrant the airspace 
constraints it would put on other areas? 

13. In 1969, prior to the recent slump in airline business, peak hour 
demand at San Francisco Airport was approaching the hourly capacity 
numbers. Significant delays were occurring during some peak oeriods. 
The respite to capacity problems offered by the economic downturn 
could be lost in the near future. How should the airports, airlines, 
FAA, regulatory agencies, and ABAG interact to assure full and 
equitable use of that capacity? 



111-30 



A MEASURE OF EFFICIENT USE OF AVIATION FACILITIES * 



ASSUMPTIONS/ ISSUES PAPER 



INTRODUCTION 



A more efficient use of aircraft and airports is one possible solution to 
the problem of increasing demand for aviation services. Because spatial, 
environmental, and financial resources are limited, demonstrating optimal 
use of airport facilities is a necessity. One possible measure of optimal 
airport use is some measure of the utilization of the total seats available. 

The desire to see better utilization of aircraft before new aviation 
facilities are considered was expressed in testimony to the Regional Airport 
Systems Study Committee at its public hearings. This input has prompted 
the RASSC to consider a M load factor" ** criterion which can be used in 
determining future aviation requirements for the Region and could be applied 
in the future to measure the need for new facilities. 



SUMMARY AND ORIENTATION 



The number of variables which must be included make the definition of a 
"reasonable" load factor difficult. Some of these are: 



1. Market differences - There is wide variation among markets being 
served by the Bay Region airports. For example, the largest market, 
Southern California, has a Bay Area load factor of about 55%, *** while 
the load factor for other markets may be as low as 20%. 

2. Competi tion - Airlines competing with one another on the same routes and 
schedules often cause low load factors. Hawaii, although the fifth 
largest Bay Region market, has a relatively low load factor of 40%, due 

in part to the competition of the four airlines servicing it. For example, 
on six days of the week, four planes leave the Bay Region for Hawaii within 
fifteen minutes of each other. 

SFO-Honolulu: 8:45 a.m. 707 with 120 seats 

SFO-Honolulu: 8:50 a.m. 720 with 88 seats 

SFO-Honolulu: 9:00 a.m. 747 with 350 seats 

SJC/OAK-Honolulu: 9:00 a.m. 707-320 with 142 seats 

TOTAL of 700 seats 



* Prepared for the Regional Airport Systems Study Committee, April 4, 1972 

** Load factor is defined by the regulatory agencies as "the number of passenger 
miles as a percent of the number of seat miles, in revenue service" 
(California PUC Glossary of Terms, Novermber 1, 1971) 

*** California PUC form 1504.23 

**** fficial Airline Guide, October 15, 1971 

I I 1-31 



3. Passenger service - Airline service to a given market must be frequent 
enough to assure a reasonable level of service to passengers. This again 
may account for low load factors even in relatively large markets. There 
may be enough passengers to warrant frequent flights throughout the day, 
but not, perhaps, enough to fill each flight. 

4. Demand variation - There are hourly, daily, and seasonal variations in 
passenger demand for air travel services - for example, Saturdays are 
low travel days. While adjustments in schedules are made, fluctuations 
in load factor still do occur. * 

5. Aircraft mix - The introduction of larger aircraft results in reduced 
load factors for a certain period of time until traffic demand rises to 
meet the increased capacity. This can be seen in the load factor fluctu- 
ations for the total U.S. industry: ** 



6. Break-even load factor - Passenger service and competition factors must 
be balanced with the necessity of the airline to benefit financially. 
Too- low load factors may not pay for the operation of the aircraft. 
Current break-even load factor would be in the order of 40%. 

7. Hew service - The introduction of new service will often experience low 
initial load factor until the market is developed. For example, National 
Airlines service between SFO and Atlanta currently has a load factor of 
15-18%. *** 

The RASSC has been helped in defining a load factor figure by the recent 
decision of the CAB to require of airlines a 55% load factor before fare 
increases will be granted. This standard was, in the words of the CAB, 
"designed to discourage excessive schedules and was based in part on the 
environmental considerations of airport congestion and air and noise 
pollution." **** It will also, as pointed out in Aviation Week and Space 
Technology" (page 28, 4/19/71), 11 give airline management an added incentive to 
both reduce schedules unilaterally and to expedite collective capacity control 
action under the Board's authority." 



An example of a possible remedy to this problem is given in the March 27, 197 
"Aviation Week & Space Technology": "What the carriers are learning is that 
the 747 is a profitable peak-hour plane in a high-density market, but highly 
inflexible in a frequency battle. The solution is in schedule adaptation- 
using the 747 in the peaks and scheduling smaller aircraft for off-peak 
frequencies in the market-share game. 

ATA, Air Transport 1971 

"Aviation Week and Space Technology," January 31, 1972, page 30 
"Aviation Week and Space Techirology," January 20, 1972, page 112 



1960 a1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967A1968 1969 1970 
L.F. 59.3 P5574 53.0 53.1 55.0 55.2 58.0 56.5 I 52.6 50.0 49.7 





1 1 1-32 



Although this standard has been set by the CAB as a guideline for fare 
increases, there is, at this time, no concrete assurance from any regulatory 
agency that certain load factor regulations will be absolutely mandatory 
for all airlines. 

PROBLEMS WITH LOAD FACTOR AS A MEASUREMENT OF AIRPORT EFFICIENCY 

Several things occur when airport statistics are used to generate load 
factor ratios for airports: 

- if flight schedules are used to generate the number of 
seats available, then non-scheduled and cancelled flights 
are missed. 

- if an airport (such as San Jose) has a significant amount 
of through plane service, then not all of the seats are 
available for that airport's passengers 

- positioning flights * will cause low load factors 

Because of the problems, it is suggested that an "airport utilization factor" 
be considered as a criterion. This factor would simply state the passengers 
enplaned and deplaned per airline operation at each airport. Intrinsic in the 
factor would be the following: 

- load factor 

- positioning flights 

- all -cargo operations 

- training operations 

- size of aircraft in the mix 

- amount of through plane service 

- airline competition 

- service available to the public 

The "airport utilization factor" for the Bay Area has been forecasted by Systems 
Analysis and Research Corp. to be: 

1975 - airport utilization factor of 61 passengers per operation ** 
1980 . " " " 11 71 

1985 - 11 11 " 11 77 



Scheduled flights run primarily to reposition an aircraft for a later 

If 747 size aircraft are not in the mix, this number becomes 64 passengers 
per operation. 



1 11-33 



Currently at the three airports we are doing: 



Airport Year Airport Utilization Factor (passengers/operation) 

SFO 1970 45 

OAK 1969 28 

SJC 1969 28 



In order to achieve the forecast levels, some of the things affecting the 
airport utilization factor will need to change. The obvious ones currently 
changing are the introduction of aircraft with increased size (and fewer 
operations) and improved load factors. 

This criteria could allow for an overall "efficient" airport use even 

though two airports had different airport utilization factors. Also, two airports 

could have completely different reasons that interact to cause the same numerical 

value. 



The importance of this factor is demonstrated below: 



Existing 
Airports 


Speas II 
Capacity (000) 


Passenqer Capacity (millions) 
AUF 64 AUF 77 AUF 85 AUF 90 


SFO 


370 


23.7 


28.5 


31.4 


33.3 


OAK 


179 


10.5 


13.8 


15.2 


16.1 


SJC 


117 


7.5 


9.0 


9.9 


10.5 




TOTAL 


41.7 


51.3 


56.5 


59.9 



111-34 



FURTHER ANALYSIS OF AIRPORT UTILIZATION FACTORS * 



ASSUMPTIONS/ISSUES PAPER 



At its April 7 meeting, the RASSC asked staff to provide further information 
and analysis of the "airport utilization factor" (auf) as a proposed measurement 
of airport utilization. Comparisons have therefore been made of various airports' 
aufs at different time periods. The following chart presents this information 
for six California airports and six out-of-state airports for the years 1960, 
1965, and 1969/70. (See also chart A-l for passenger and operations statistics 
from which the aufs are calculated.) 

Chart I Airport Utilization Factors 
(passengers enplaned or deplaned per airline operation at each airport) 





1960 


1965 


1969 


1970 


OAK 


6 


21 




31 


SJC 


6 


11.5 




35 


SFO 


32 


41 




45 


Si IF 


11.5 


18.5 




39 


SAN 


22 


38 




43 


LAX 


29 


43.5 




50 


JFK 


23 


37 


38.5 




BOS 


23 


35.5 


41.5 




ORD 


35 


41 .5 


44 




IAD 




27 


31 




DCA 


17.5 


31 


44.5 




RNO 


12.5 


22 


31.5 





Notes: SMF=Sacramento, SAN=San Diego, LAX=Los Angeles International, 
JFK=John F. Kennedy [which was Idiewild in 1960), B0S=Boston, 
0RD=0'Hare [Chicago), IAD=Dulles (Washington D.C.), DCA= 
Washington National, RN0=Reno 

From Chart I it can be seen that the trend has been steadily increasing aufs 
over the years from 1960 to 1970. This is largely due to the continuing intro- 
duction of larger aircraft - the jets around 1960, stretched DC-8's, 727's, 
and 737's around 1967-68, and 747's in 1970 - causing a decrease in number of 
airline operations in proportion to number of passengers. Other factors may 
also enter into this trend, such as the decrease in number of training and 
positioning operations as an airport increases in size and requires its capacity 
for passengers flights. New airline route awards by CAB and PUC are also a 
factor. It can be seen that the less busy airports have lower auf values. 
These airports have fewer large aircraft and often have more through plane 
service. 



* Prepared for the Regional Airport Systems Study Committee, April 20, 1972. 



Ill -35 



From these figures it is apparent that different auf values will have 
different causal relationships and must therefore be analyzed as to the 
reasons as well as by the numerical values themselves. While the numer- 
ical values are useful for trends and comparisons and are one useful 
planning tool, a general understanding of the causes at each airport is 
also necessary. 

An example of the importance of this understanding is illustrated by San 
Jose Airport. One of the factors composing its auf is seat factor. If a 
percentage seat factor were estimated for SJC, it would currently be around 
30%. If a careful analysis of the through plane service is made, however, 
we find that many seats are already occupied by through passengers. If we 
account for this, the actual SJC seat factor would be about 50%. In a case 
such as this, it is important to analyze not only what variables affect the 
auf (such as seat factor), but also the nature of the variables themselves. 
Most important, though, for our regional planning purposes, is that SJC 
must move from a 35 auf in 1970 toward 64 in 1985 by some combination of 
these many variables if it is to reach the capability we are assuming for it. 

The airport utilization factors for the Bay Area have been forecasted by 
Systems Analysis and Research Corp. to be: 

with 747 type air- without 747 type 
craft in the mix aircraft in the mix 

1975 61 pass/oper. 51 pass/oper. 

1980 71 " " 59 " 

1985 77 " " 64 " 

If the current aufs at the three major Bay Area airports are compared as a 
proportion of these planning factors, * then: 



Chart 2 Airport Utilization Factor Ratios 





1970 




1975 




1980 




1985 




auf 


pi anned 


auf | ratio 


pi anned 


auf| ratio 


planned 


auf | ratio 


OAK 


31 


51** 


.61 


71 


.44 


77 


.40 


SJC 


35 


51 


.69 


59 


.59 


64 


.55 


SFO 


45 


61 


.74 


71 


.64 


77 


.59 



This comparative index indicates the progress toward the various aufs and I 
believe can serve as an initial check on utilization. Future changes could 
cause these ratios to exceed a value of one. 



* These have been expressed as a ratio of the 1970 auf to the planning 
factor. If there were a concern that these factors would be confused with 
"seat factor," then this ratio could be multiplied by 100 and a constant, 
say 50, 'could be added to each to create a numerically different kind of 

index. 

** If has been assumed here that 747 's are not in the mix at Oakland until 
after 1975. 



1 1 1-36 



Chart A-1 Annual Passengers [Enplaned & Deplaned) and Operations 







1960 


1955 1969 


1970 


OAK 


passengers 
operations 


334,440 
52,066 


966,636 
46,484 


2,055,180 
66,545 


SJC 


passengers 
operations 


80,731 
13,435 


126,247 
10,912 


1 ,595,153 
45,499 


SFO 


passengers 
operations 


4,637,035 
146,307 


8,706,984 
210,948 


13,867,941 
306,520 


SMF 


passengers 
operations 


339,657 
29,085 


569,291 
30,578 


1 ,330,311 
34,344 


SAN 


passengers 
operations 


878,669 
39,270 


1,632,833 
42,775 


3,341 ,291 
77,609 


LAX 


passengers 
operations 


6,605,036 12,578,9r)9 
226,873 288,610 


20,780,718 
415,719 


JFK* 


passengers 
operations 


5,246,822 12,953,298 14,462,886 
224,155 352,469 376,404 




BOS 


passengers 
operations 


2,769,826 5,364,862 9,032,172 
120,139 150,452 216,849 




ORD 


passengers 
operations 


4,240,398 18,333,148 27,788,582 
121,866 433,026 632,030 




IAD 


passengers 
operations 




874,758 1,965,280 
32,588 63,412 




DfA 


jJaoociiyCi o 

operations 


4,159,528 6,777,762 9,875,936 
239,464 219,108 221 ,831 




RNO 


passengers 
operations 


261,122 
20,600 


484,456 787,216 
22,078 24,947 





Sources : 

For Numbers of Operations; FAA Air Traffic Activity, D0T/FAA 

1960 - fiscal year ended June 30, 1960 
1965, 69, & 70 - calendar year 



Number of operations includes charter, supplemental, non-scheduled, cargo 
training, and positioning commercial airline operations. 

For Number of Passengers: Out-of-state: 

1 960 : Air Commerce Traf fic Patterns , 
FAA, fiscal year 
1965 & 1969: Airport Activity Statistics of 
Certificated Route Air Carriers , 
CAB & DOT, FAA 



1 1 1-37 



For Numbers of Passengers: In-state: data from individual airport activity 

records, 1960,1965, and 1970 calendar years. 



Out-of-state passenger numbers include charter and non-scheduled, but 1965 and 
1969 do not include supplemental or intra-state passengers. Intra-state figures 
are small and therefore not highly significant, but the inclusion of supplemental 
passengers, while still a small proportion, would raise the number of passengers 
and cause a slight increase in the a.u.f.'s. 

In-state passenger numbers do include supplemental and intra-state, as well as 
charter and non-scheduled. 

Because the numbers of operations for 1960 are for the fiscal year and the 
numbers of passengers are for the calendar year, there is some discrepancy 
in the figures, although for this year it is probably not significant. 



111-38 



ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES 



Dramatic technological growth in the twentieth century has often been 
paralleled by an equally dramatic deterioration of environmental quality. 
Evidence of such deterioration has become increasingly apparent over the 
past few years as the cumulative effects of largely unrestrained develop- 
ment are being felt. As a result, there has been increasing public and 
private concern about the conservation of environmental resources and the 
maintenance of a liveable level of environmental quality. 

The Committee therefore gave major attention to consideration of the 
relationship between aviation activity and the environment. The impacts 
which various levels of aviation development have and will have upon 
air quality, noise levels, and the physical environment were sought, 
and public response and attitudes were solicited. An integral part of 
the study, this work led to the adoption of specific decision criteria 
for noise and air quality which were used in the decision process and 
which will also serve as guidelines for any future airport developments. 
The land use report was not formalized into decision criteria, but the 
study facilitated the identification of environmental factors associated 
with particular airport proposals, such as open space, parks and recrea- 
tion areas, Bay fill, and wildlife refuges, and called attention to 
those areas of probable major concern in each case. 



111-39 



THE EFFECT OF AVIATION ON AIR QUALITY * 
ASSUMPTIONS/ ISSUES PAPER 



INTRODUCTION 

Aviation along with its advantages of convenience and efficiency, is also 
recognized as having environmental problems. Aircraft are often perceived 
as the source of odorous, soiling, visibility-restricting air pollution. 
Because this subject of aviation-caused pollution is sensitive and concern 
with it so high, it is important to develop data which can give a realistic 
picture of the present and potential situation within a broad regional con- 
text, and can thus serve as a basis for informed judgments and decisions. 
This paper discusses the assumptions and issues surrounding the subject of 
air quality which must be carefully considered by the Study Committee in 
its decision-making process. 

REPORT SUMMARY 

The California State and the Federal governments have established ambient air 
quality standards for the five contaminants which are associated with aviation- 
standards which reflect those levels which should not be exceeded in the atmo- 
sphere because of possible impairment of public health and comfort. These 
five contaminants are: 

- oxidant (broken down in this study into hydro-carbons 
or organics , and nitrogen dioxide) 

- carbon monoxide 

- sulfur dioxide 

- nitrogen dioxide 

- particulate matter 

The study developed and applied methods of identifying the levels of these 
emissions at Bay Area airports, both at present and for five future con- 
ditions, ** and of determining their probable impact on surrounding areas. 



* Prepared for the Regional Airport Systems Study Committee, November 5, 1971. 

** - 1975 demand 

- 1980 demand 

- 1985 demand 

- present maximum capacity 

- future maximum capacity 



1 1 1-41 



Aviation emissions come from five basic sources: 



1. aircraft operations - an operation is either a takeoff or a 
landing, including climbout and approach under 3500'. Above 
3500', pollutants are diffused and diluted over an area so large 
that it is not possible to determine their impact on any specific 
Bay Region area. 

2. engine overhaul and maintenance facilities 

3. fuel handling, storage, and transfer 

4. jet fuel dumping (up to 1975, after which this practice will 
probably be discontinued) 

5. ground motor vehicles - vehicle activity on the airport, as well 
as trips made directly between airport locations and the nearest 
highway or freeway, are considered to be directly aviation-related. 

At present, aviation accounts for approximately 1.5% of all air contam- 
inants emitted in the Region. Total emissions of contaminants to the 
atmosphere in the Region are expected to decline substantially (from 
9463 to 3584 tons per day) over the next 15 years, primarily because of 
automobile exhaust control improvements. The amount attributable to aviation, 
however, will increase from 138 to 280 tons per day. The net result will be 
aviation contributing about 8% of the total by 1985. 

A study of air pollution impact must be made within the context of the 
Region's cl imatological features. Emissions do not remain stable at 
their source, but are dispersed and transported from it. How and to what 
extent distribution takes place depends upon such factors as temperature, 
airflow regimes, inversions, and precipitation. 

The nine counties of the San Francisco Bay Region together form an air basin, 
where control of pollutants required common action on an areawide basis. The 
shared problem does not, however, imply a uniformity of conditions. The Region 
is an area of complex climatology, with large differences within it. Some 
localities, because of their specific features, are thus more sensitive than 
others to the introduction of air contaminants. 

For planning purposes, it is useful to have a general guide which indicates 
the sensitivity of certain areas. This can be done by rating air pollution 
potential - the probable reaction of an area to additional emissions . (See 
Chart I ) This reaction also depends upon the area's existing background 
pollution situation, since that, too, will affect further tolerance. Such a 
rating system can be applied to any area which may come under consideration 
by the RASS Committee. 



111-42 



In addition to the potential ratings, the study developed a more specific 
evaluation method for determining the actual impact which airports have upon 
adjacent communities. This method focuses on a particular emission source ai 
and quantitatively measures the concentrations of its emissions at various 
receptor sites. The concentration levels attributable to aviation are then 
considered together with already existing pollution levels at the receptor 
sites. When compared to air quality standards, then it is possible to 
determine how much further emissions activity a given site can tolerate. 
Again, this process can be applied to any airports and receptor sites the 
Committee may wish to consider. 

ASSUMPTIONS 

Following are the assumptions underlying the air pollution calculations 
and analyses. These may be open to question and should be reviewed and 
evaluated by the Committee: 

+1. Figures for present and future aircraft operations and ground vehicle 
activity were taken from the forecast, capacity, and access work done 
in Phase I of the Study. 

2. A. In order to provide some insight into 1975 and 1980 demand con- 

ditions, those interim figures were derived simply by extrapolating 
from the 1970 and 1985 figures given in the Phase I forecast. 

B. While figures are given in the report for total number of airport 
operations at present maximum capacity and future maximum capacity, 
these conditions will notin fact occur simultaneously for all 
airports. 

C. The allocation of total demand among airports is only one of many 
allocations which could be made. The Committee may have to re- 
estimate the air emissions levels at specific airports based upon 
their allocation of total demand. This can be done for any of the 
alternatives which the Committee may wish to consider. 

3. Future aircraft mix conditions were obtained from Technical Memorandum 
1 1 - 1 and the forecast report of Phase I of the Study. 

4. All JT8D engines will be retrofitted with new "burner cans" (no visible 
smoke trail) by th2 mid-1970's. No other enginer retrofit for air qual 
purposes is assumed. 

5. There will be no residual fuel dumping after 1975. 



+ Refer to Chapter 1 discussion of air quality for revised figures. 



1 1 1-43 



6. New motor vehicles will meet federal and state emission requirements 
for each model year from 1971-76; no more stringent controls will be 
mandated for models after 1976; retirement/replacement ratio of auto- 
mobiles will remain constant. 

7. The Hybrid Diffusion Model can reasonably predict air emission con- 
centrations at locations adjacent to the source. 

8. The regulations of the Bay Area Air Pollution Control District will 
be fully effectuated within the nine-county Bay Region. (Note that 
certain outlying areas have since been excluded as unique air basin 

areas*) 

9. Area-wide growth will continue. 

10. No specific guidance concerning air quality is available in the 
Regional Plan . 

ISSUES 

From this background and these assumptions, the issues relevant to 
aviation pollution can be identified: 

1. Should the Committee include in its considerations the need to 
anticipate future state and federal air quality standards, particu- 
larly with respect to visible smoke from existing jet aircraft? 

2. In de /el oping aircraft emission data from various sources, it was 
necessary to make certain judgments about selection and calculation. 
In some cases, there were substantial differences of opinion among 
technical sources. 

3. While the placement or expansion of an airport in a certain location 
may be satisfactory based upon the general area's pollution potential 
rating, emissions at particular sites close to the airport could still 
exceed standards. Thus, both the general and the specific pollution 
situation of various locations must be considered. 

4. Highway travel to the airport is a significant source of aviation- 
related pollution. This was not included in the present work. 

5. The amount of pollutants generated by an aircraft trip, even when the 
ground access at both ends of the air trip is included, is much lower 
than the amount which would be generated if the same number of passen- 
gers went that distance by automobile. Estimates of how much lower 
this amount is vary, but it is, in any case, substantial. (See Chart 2) 



The northwest portion of Sonoma County and the northeast portion of 
Solano County have been excluded as of Spring, 1971. 



111-44 



6. This home-to-airport ground access comprises a sizeable proportion of 
the total pollution from an aviation trip. If access were made more 
efficient, air travel would be, emission-wise, even more "economical" 
than equivalent automobile travel: 

A. Reducing airport access distance is one way of reducing access 
and overall area pollution. On the other hand, airports placed 
close to urban centers may cause air quality standards at nearby 
sites to be exceeded. Thus, overall access pollution must be 
weighed against specific site pollution. User convenience must 
also be a factor when considering access distances. 

B. Alternative or improved vehicle modes are another means of reducing 
ground access pollution. Rapid transit especially could enable the 
placement of an airport site at a distance from urban centers with- 
out causing large amounts of air pollution, if a large proportion 
of the people going to and from the airport use it. 

7. A good location for air quality may be a poor location for many other 
factors. 

8. In the airport alternatives which the Committee is investigating, the 
extremes in automobile access average trip distance are represented by 
a minimum of 21.4 miles and a maximum of 46.0 miles. The difference 
between them is estimated to contribute 77 tons of contaminants per 
day by 1985 from automobile trips by passengers, "greeters and God- 
speeders," employees, and other automobile business purposes to air- 
ports. 

9. Is it meaningful for the RASS Committee to decide that no major airline 
jet operations shall be placed in an area with a pollution potential 
rating of V if similar pollution control measures are not undertaken 

by other regional planning agencies? 

10. Can the proportion of air contaminant contribution by aviation to the 
Region be used in judging the proportion acceptable in a local basin? 

11. In the selection of airport alternatives, should the Committee attempt 
to minimize air emissions from all sources, including motor access? 



111-45 



Chart 1 




CHART 2 



AIRCRAFT VS. GROUND VEHICLE EMISSION LEVELS 



Source 1 



Knut Hammarskjold , Director General, 
International Air Transport Association 



Current Jets 
Future Jets 
Current Automobiles 
Diesel Trains 



3# pollution/1000 seat miles * 

2# pollution/1000 seat miles 

52# pollution/1000 seat miles 

9# pollution/1000 seat miles 



Source 2 



Department of Transportation study for the 
National Aeronautics and Space Engineering 
Board of the National Academy of Engineering 
Washington, D.C. 



1975 Jets 

1975 Automobiles 



7# pollution/1000 seat miles 
84# pollution/1000 seat miles 



* a seat mile is one available passenger seat in a vehicle 
traveling one mile 



111-47 



AVIATION NOISE EVALUATIONS AND PROJECTIONS FOR THE BAY REGION* 



ASSUMPTIONS/ISSUES PAPER 
INTRODUCTION 

Noise is currently the most critical environmental problem associated 
with aviation in this country. Public reaction to this "invisible 
pollutant" has been continual and voluble over a number of years, ranging 
from individual complaints to community lawsuits. Present dissatisfaction 
and concern for the future are so great that decisions about the expansion 
of existing airports or the development of new airports have, at times, 
rested almost entirely upon questions of noise. The public demand for both 
a continuing growth of air transportation and a liveable noise environ- 
ment indicates the urgent necessity for careful noise evaluation and 
planning, from the aircraft source to the land uses on the ground. 

There are ways to control aviation noise and to coordinate community and 
aviation growth. A vital task confronting the RASS Committee is the 
determination of what the best ways are and how to achieve them. In so 
doing, the Committee must consider a wide range of factors and issues, 
determine the relationships between them, and somehow resolve and unify 
them all into workable solutions. The purpose of this paper is to help 
identify these factors and issues relevant to the problem of noise and to 
indicate some of the decisions which will have to be made. 

REPORT SUMMARY 

Considerable study has been devoted to the measurement of aircraft noise and 
the interpretation of its effects upon people, both as individuals and as 
groups living in communities. Two general types of noise descriptors have 
evolved: 

Those concerned with the measurement of single events , 
such as takeof fs , landings, and overflights 

Those concerned with the measurement of the noise environment 
resulting from numerous individual noise events 

Since aviation noise problems begin with aircraft and their use of airports, 
the evaluation of the COMPOSITE NOISE ENVIRONMENT is of primary concern. The 
particular measurement procedure chosen for this study is the Noise Exposure 
Forecast (NEF ) . Aircraft noise loudness, quality, duration, frequency, and 
time of occurrence (day or night) are all included in NEF measurements. 



* Prepared for the Regional Airport Systems Study Committee November 5, 1971 



111-48 



Based upon such factors as noise complaint histories, speech interference 
criteria, subjective judgments of "noisiness," and the need for freedom from 
noise interference, the compatibility of different noise levels with various 
land uses can be evaluated. These evaluations of noise impact provide a 
guide for land-use and "people" planning around airports. The 30 NEF value 
generally defines the boundaries of areas where aviation noise is of some 
concern. (See Chart 1 for additional description.) 

Noise Contours 

The general noise environment in an airport vicinity can be visually 
described by the drawing of noise contours which are based upon NEF 
projections. While 1970 contours reflect a present level of traffic and 
noise activity, any contours drawn for a projected date must necessarily 
use certain assumptions about future aircraft types, runway utilization, 
flight procedures, and airport use. Different combinations of assumptions 
will produce a variety of alternative descriptions. 

The 1985 airport contours used in the report represent a level of activity 
based upon the maximum capacity of existing runways at the given airport, 
with a defined aircraft mix and current (1970) methods of operations. Not 
all airports, or airport combinations, as defined by the RASSC in the eleven 
alternative airport systems, were considered. This is because the complexity 
of the process and the large number of alternatives which would have to be 
included made a complete analysis impracticable. However, the definitions 
and analytical techniques which were developed provide a broad understanding 
of approach and method, and also make it possible to focus on any specific 
alternatives which the Committee may wish to examine more closely at a 
later time. 

To give an idea of the actual impact which specific airports do have, the 
University of California is calculating for the RASSC the land-use of areas 
within the 30, 35, 40, and 45 NEF contours at SF0, OAK, and SJC, using 
contours for both current (1970)' usage and projected (1985) capacity. The 
amount and type of land and buildings which are affected by certain noise 
levels are being identified and can then be compared for land-use compat- 
ibility (See Chart 1). Again, this procedure can be applied to the 
environment at any other airport. 

Single Event Noise 

Single event noise problems have not in the past been as widespread as 
problems in airport neighborhoods. Complaints about noise from high altitude 
overflights over scattered residential areas are growing, however, and are 
likely to demand much attention as they increase in the future. 

People's perception of such overflight noise is extemely variable. Its 
"noticeability" greatly depends upon the already existing noise situation of 
the area intruded upon. Differences in reaction to the same noise level will 
thus arise among various communities, as well as in the same community under 
varying conditions. 



1 1 1-49 



Reactions among individuals also seem to be markedly influenced by personal 
attitudes and feelings about the source and purpose of the noise. People 
make judgments of a noise's "appropriateness" based upon such conditions as 
its necessity, legality, and avoidability. Negative feelings toward over- 
flights may thus be much stronger than would seem warranted because the 
noise is thought to be less acceptable than equivalent automobile loudness 
or directly airport-related events. 

ASSUMPTIONS 

Following are the assumptions underlying the noise evaluations and projections. 
These may be open to question and should be carefully reviewed by the Committee 

1. The NEF method of analysis represents a valid means of description and 
projection . 

2. Projected 1985 contours, because of their reliance on assumptions about 
future aircraft types, airport use, etc., are predictive rather than precise 

3. The land-use compatibility charts define the effect of noise upon different 
environments. This is but one interpretation. And within this inter- 
pretation, the definitions are not meant to be exact. The 30, 35, 40, etc. 
NEF values must be viewed as having a certain degree of flexibility in 
relationship to the land uses to which they are applied. 

4. The work done in noise characteristics of aircraft engines has assumed that: 

- all new aircraft engines must meet Part 36.* The effect of 
increasing the weight of already certificated aircraft was not 
included. 

- all pre-Part 36 aircraft will be retrofitted by the 1980's or 
not used in the Bay Area. 

- retrofitted engines on old airplanes will demonstrate the 
ability to meet Part 36, but since they are not required to 

be operated in the mode used in certification, somewhat higher 
noise levels will be experienced. 

- the existing fleet of business jets will not be retrofitted. 

5. It was assumed that if there is an SST operating into the Bay Area airports: 

- arrivals and departures will be subsonic. 

- the aircraft will meet Part 36 noise certification. 



* Federal Aviation Regulations, Part 36, "Noise Standards: Aircraft Type 
Certification." 

+ See Chapter I discussion of noise for any revisions. 



nr-50 



ISSUES 



In choosing the best solution to noise control and planning from the options 
available, many considerations other than noise itself must enter into the 
decision. It is apparent that a benefit for one aspect of aviation planning 
may be a liability, or even impossibility, for another. All must somehow 
be weighed and connected. 

1. A. Within the last few years, governmental steps have been taken to 

control aviation noise. These include the introduction of federal 
noise certification requirements for jet aircraft* and the setting 
of noise standards by the California State Legislature for operations 
at state licensed airports.** The RASSC must include in its consider- 
ations the need to comply with such standards. 

B. Should the Committee use the State of California's proposed noise 
regulations for the year 1985 as a standard for their 1985 pi anning? 
Criteria for defining Impact Areas for non-compatible land-uses would 
then be as follows : 

residential and educational 30 NEF (approximately 65 CNEL) and above 
commercial 35 NEF (approximately 70 CNEL) and above 

industrial 40 NEF (approximately 75 CNEL) and above 

agricultural and open 40 NEF (approximately 75 CNEL) and above 

2. Airport operating procedures must at all times consider safety as 
paramount. Options such as runway utilization or engine thrust settings 
may be qualified by safety. 

3. The ability to provide noise abatement and at the same time preserve or 
increase airspace capacity may be constrained by technological feasibility, 
In aviation planning, should noise considerations take precedence over 
capacity and economic considerations? 

4. Compatible land-use is often already negated by present uses at existing 
airports. Changing this would be extremely difficult and costly. 
Planning for "buffer zones" at new airport sites will also be costly, 
perhaps prohibitively so. At the same time, noise complaints and citizen 
actions demand appropriate response. 



* Federal Aviation Regulations, Part 36, "Noise Standards: Aircraft Type 
Certification. " 

** California Department of Aeronautics "Noise Standards," California 
Administrative Code, Chapter 9, Title 4 (Register 70, No. 48, dated 
November 28, 1970). 



1 1 1-51 



5. The placement of a new airport site where there is adequate noise 
buffering may mean long access distances. Cost and user convenience 
are at issue here. 

6. What is a good airport location for noise may be a poor location for air 
quality or land-use. 

7. Is the Bay itself an acceptable noise buffer area? 

8. Can "noisy" neighborhoods and areas be allocated more aviation over- 
flight than "quiet" ones? 

9. Should the standards used to govern civilian airport planning be 
required of the military? 

10. Should the RASSC assure that traffic control routings can provide 
specific limitations to exposure from aviation noise? 

11. The NEF numbering system 30, 35, 40, etc. is linear; the noise char- 
acteristic measurement used to develop it is logarithmetic ; and the 
land area is a square function. The end result is that a reduction of 
3 NEF: 

- requires a 50% reduction in aircraft operations 

- makes a very large percentage change in land area within a 
contour 

- and yet may result in a noise reduction not perceived by 
the public 



111-52 



Chart 1 




111-53 



Chart 2 

COMPARISON OF APPROXIMATE LAND AREAS 



WITHIN NEF 30 AND NEF 40 CONTOURS* 



YEARLY VOLUME 



APPROXIMATE LAND AREA 
WITHIN NEF CONTOURS * 



AIRPORT 




YEAR 


AIR CARRIER 
OPERATIONS 


SQUARE MILES 
30 NEF 


40 NEF 


San Francisco 


(1) 


1970 


333,435 


19.4 


1 .8 




(1) 


1985 


382,000 


11.3 


0.6 




(2) 


1970 


333,435 


16.3 


1 .2 




(2) 


1985 


382,000 


8.8 


0.4 


Oakland 




1970 


58,805 


3.8 


0.1 






1985 


221 ,000 


4.6 


0.3 


San Jose 




1970 


52,171 


3.6 


0.3 






1985 


117,000 


5.8 


0.5 



* Exclusive of land within 1970 airport boundaries. 
(1 ) 1970 Runway Utilization 

(2) Projected runway utilization for allowable takeoff crosswind 
component of 20 knots. 



NOTE: Adjustments in the numbers of operations assumed for 1985 would 
result in corresponding adjustments of the land areas within the 
various NEF levels. 



1 1 1-54 



THE EFFECT OF AVIATION ON PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT AND LAND USES* 



ASSUMPTIONS/ ISSUES PAPER 



INTRODUCTION 

This is one of a series of issue papers on estimated requirements or 
effects of aviation growth on the Bay Region for the Regional Airport 
Systems Study Committee. The two purposes of these papers are: to aid 
the Committee's digestion of detailed consultant reports on each study 
element and to air some of the issues posed by them. 

This paper covers The Effect of Aviation on Physical Environment and Land 
Uses by Wilsey and Ham, one of three consultant reports done under the 
environmental quality element of the study. In the absence of a proven 
evaluation process, Wilsey and Ham tried to set up a systematic method 
for evaluating environmental sensitivity to aviation activity in the Bay 
Region. The report combines the findings of the other two reports, 
Aviation Noise Evaluations and Projections and Aviation Effect on Air 
Quality , along with other aviation effects in an attempt to develop a 
systematic process of evaluation for "early warning." 

REPORT SUMMARY 

Scope 

The environmental quality report presents only an environmental overview 
of the Region, neither an in-depth analysis of specific aviation alternatives 
chosen afterwards nor an evaluation of specific projects. Specifically 
omitted are geological factors for specific projects, e.g., earthquake 
hazard, subsidence, flooding and unstable substrata, and fill material. 
These factors are presently under study by the U.S. Geological Survey, which 
will publish its findings. 

An Emphasis on Environmental Sensitivity 

The report centers on the development of an "early warning" process to 
systematically scan the key effects of aviation activity upon people, 
animals, plants, and natural features of the Bay Area. It also includes: 

a) an inventory of life and natural features deemed 
sensitive to aviation development effects of noise, 
emissions, water pollution, and other influences on 
land use 

b) a land use pattern map for the present (1970) 

c) a general picture of land uses for the future (1985-90) 



* Prepared for the Regional Airport Systems Study Committee November 5, 1971 



111-55 



The key concept of the "early warning" process is the environmental 
sensitivity level (ESL). ESL is an estimate combining a habitation area's 
expected sensitivity to noise, air, water, and land use impact assumed for 
three levels of aviation activity. The ESL fits on a Regional map where 
it flags sensitive habitats before an aviation alternative is recommended. 

Habitats 

The Bay Area environment was studied, mapped, and classified into human 
and wildlife habitats. Human habitats appear as three use groups : 
1) agricultural 2) residential and educational institutions and 3) 
commercial, industrial, and military. Wildlife habitats appear as five 
physical -biotic types: 1) shallow water 2) mud flats 3) salt ponds 
4) salt marshes and 5) grasslands. 

Excluded from consideration are deep water and land above 15% slope, 
assuming an unsui tabi 1 i ty for aviation development. 

In the work, the contractor consulted federal, regional, county, state, and 
municipal land use reports and plans and the organizations that created 
them in many cases. 

The ABC of ESL 

The ESL composite index is approximate not precise, as its general derivation 
suggests and a closer look confirms. 

The ESL originates as follows: 

A. Each habitat is rated for its sensitivity to each aviation 
impact - once for "objective" effect and once for "subjective" 
concern. (5, high; 3, medium; 1, low) 

B. The two ratings for each impact are then multiplied together. 

C. All these impacts are totalled for each of the eight habitats. 
The habitats with the larger totals are the most sensitive. 

The habitat totals themselves are grouped into high, medium, and low 
sensitivity. These are then drawn as an Environmental Sensitivity Level 
Contour Map, the use of which is urged by the consultant. 

Contained in the "early warning" system is a matching of three levels of 

noise, air, and water pollution impacts to an inventory of five wildlife 
and three human habitats. 

The ESL formula with "fudge" factor is" ESL = A(B) + 

where: A = "Objective" Environmental Resource Rating 
B = "Subjective" Environmental Resource Rating 
= Unknown or other change factor 



1 1 1-56 



The main input to the ESL "early warning" is the consultant's dual 
estimate of A) "objective" effect and B) "subjective" concern. 

A) " OBJECTIVE " estimates generalized standards of the Bay Area Air 
Pollution Control District Combined Pollutant Index, the San Francisco 
Bay Area Regional Water Quality Control Board, and the FAA's Noise 
Evaluation Forecast (NEF) for air, water, and noise impacts, respectively. 
Other impacts estimated were more judgmental. 

B) " SUBJECTIVE " ratings, lacking a regional opinion survey, were presumed 
for the public by the consultant, based partly on the Environmental 
Attitude Study: Summary of Findings , San Jose, Santa Clara County 
Transportation Study. It was assumed that the closer the public could 
see impacts on other species as indicators of potential effects on 
human life, the higher the "subjective" concern assigned to such 
species of their habitats. 

Other Impacts 

Valued items outside a neat noise, water, and air scheme were fit and 
rated under two categories: "Disruption of Wildlife Habitats" and "Other 
Envi ronmental Concerns . " 

Under the analysis, Distinction and Difference, habitat sensitivities 
tended to be at least medium for all human and wildlife categories. 
Over the range of items rated, the objective vs. the subjective results 
differed little. 

More Materials 

Besides or leading to the ESL "early warning" process, the report has 
other maps, an inventory of wildlife, background information and 
observation, and a Wildlife Habitat Ranking System. 

The Regional Wildlife Habitat Ranking Map supplements the ESL maps by 
ranking areas of high, medium, and low importance according to ecological 
criteria - diversity of species, presence of unique plants or animals, 
productivity, proposed or present wildlife refuge, etc. 

The 1990 land use picture stretches maps, assumptions, and estimates into a 
picture. Looking ahead, the report observes that "the need for additional 
airport facilities is largely based on population growth and that it is 
ecologically vital to realize that no_ population can continue to increase 
indefinitely in a given area." The population issue which underlies the others 
cannot be resolved by the RASS Committee alone. It will need close consider- 
ation in view of recent shifts in population patterns and public opinion. 



1 1 1-57 



FEATURES OF THE METHOD AND ASSUMPTIONS 



Regardless of the source of increased aviation demand - more people flying, 
or people flying more often, or both - from an environmental standpoint, 
the effect of more or expanded facilities remains to be evaluated. The 
nature of the problem and the features of the "early warning" method and 
the assumptions need to be related. 

Adjustability 

The ESL process operates in an area with many unknowns, uncertainties, 
and variables. This requires the approach be adjustable. Modification 
can come three ways: a) using the formula's fudge factor b) changing the 
itemized list of impacts or resources c) re-weighting the elements. 

On "Bay Fill," for example, "subjective" concern has been strong enough to 
create and support BCDC. Accordingly, if it were felt that the "5" rating 
assigned slighted the importance of Bay Fill, then an additional category 
could be added to the list or the fudge factor could be activated for Bay 
Fill. The work's exclusion of deep water may have deleted a key concern 
and reduced the value of the process in this dimension. 

Ambiguity and Reliability 

One ESL number may mean two different things to two different people. 
Two people may agree on a number but not its content because the same 
number may be the product of several combinations of multiplied ratings. 

ESL = (objective) X (subjective) + change factor (if any) 

The factors need to be backed out of the results to see where agreements lie. 

As a single composite index, ESL sacrifices accuracy and meaning for 
simplicity. Simplicity itself is good for an "early warning," but a 
second or third look will always be needed. ESL generalization requires 
qualification and its use must be limited to its reliability range, which 
is low . 

Nature of the Problem and a Dubious Distinction 

There is rarely a clean-cut technical answer to a problem whose solution 
inevitably involves political decisions on what is "acceptable." In 
defining acceptable levels of environmental impact, acceptable levels of 
aviation growth are also at issue, to the extent that they conflict. The 
Committee is charged with considering the technical information, including 
the effect of aviation on the physical environment, before making its 
decision on the "best" alternative in the political arena. 

The "objective" - "subjective" distinction at the bottom of the ESL process 
is dubious for several reasons. .First, it dilutes the technical findings 
of effect with preempted political policy findings. Second, it did not serve 



1 1 1-58 



the analysis, in view of the complexity of the environment, the current 
state of ecological analysis and the heavy dose of judgmental input which 
both ratings share. In any event, the "objective" and "subjective" ratings 
were substantially similar and the distinction did not make much difference 
in the results. 

The "objective" rating is expert opinion partly substantiated. The 
"subjective" rating is expert presumption of public opinion. In each case 
the consultant did the rating. (A public value survey was suggested in the 
report. ) 

The "early warning" process is to spot environmental risk, not to presume 
public opinion and the expression, perception, and preference going into it. 
After the public and the decision-makers are informed, "subjective" prefer- 
ences can be heard and considered - environmental as well as others. 

BROAD AND POINTED ISSUES 

In light of the Environmental Report and the needs of the Committee, 
the smaller issues seem to stem from two big ones: 

1) Is the Environmental Report usable? If so, how, where, and 
to what extent? 

2) What else is available? Should it be used instead of or besides 
the consultant's work? 

Usabil i ty 

On the first issue, the report contains some pieces useful in themselves 
as the inventory, wildlife habitat ranking and criteria and associated 
maps, but it centers on the ESL process. Questions on the ESL process 
include the following: 

- Has it formulated the "problem" enough to yield a useful 
result from available inputs? 

- Does it include key risks or concerns in its categories? 

- Can you rely on it? Where? Where not? To what degree? 

- Is it clear? 

- Is it easy to use, to explain, and to justify to your 
constituents? 

- Is it capable of being modified or supplemented? 

What Else? 

On the second issue, it is important to recall that the report was done 
in the first place because there was no one proven, systematic, overall 
evaluation process known to us. 

For two aspects of impact - noise and air pollution - the separate reports 
are available. 



1 1 1-59 



On Bay Fill, BCDC's San Francisco Bay Plan , page 1, reads: 



"... Some Bay filling may be justified for purposes providing 
substantial public benefits if these same benefits could not be 
achieved equally well without filling. Substantial public ben- 
efits are provided by: ...(c) developing expanded airport terminals 
and runways if regional studies demonstrate that there are no 
feasible sites for major airport development away from the Bay..." 

At issue is a definition of "feasible" and a demonstration that non-Bay 
sites either fall into or out of the definition. "Feasible" involves 
any criteria that could kill a non-Bay proposal: noise, cost, access, 
number, and identity of people benefiting, etc. 

The Bay Plan of BCDC suggested a regional airport study but leaves the 
Committee with the problem rather than a systematic process for resolving 
it. Unlike the airport study which is charged with making a recommendation 
of alternatives at a given time, BCDC is on-going and acts on a project 
by project basis as each is submitted. 

For Bay Fill, use of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Bay Simulation 
Model is costly, time-consuming, and inconclusive on the effect of fill 
at airport expansion scale. Supplemental mathematical models would 
also need to be used. After deliberation, the Committee chose to hold 
off on the Model until specific Bay alternatives become imminent. In 
that case, this dimension would revive as a design feature. 

Certain U.S. Geodesic Survey findings will become available but would 
probably not become decisive on the regional scale. 

A growing body of environmental law will need to be considered as the 
Committee narrows the alternatives. Recommendations made would need to 
result in effects which would be within legal limits. 

The Environmental Report is testimony to the difficulty of trying to 
devise a usable systematic process for evaluating the impact of aviation 
on complex Bay Area environments where changes act in acute and chronic 
ways which will take years to unravel. 

Pointed Issues 

In searching now for the "best" balance, the Committee will need to make 
some presumptions in the absence of precisely proven effects in some areas. 
In view of the Committee's imminent needs and the limitations of the 
Environmental Report, it would seem that the report could be used but only 
on a qualified basis. As a presumption for avoiding airport facility 
development in a sensitive area, an ESL level of 5 (high - medium or above) 
could be useful . 



1 1 1-60 



In pointing environmental concerns toward aviation alternatives, the 
following issues seem to stand out. 

1. Should the Committee presume that unless proven otherwise, areas of 
high - medium or above environmental sensitivity (ESL) are unsuitable 
for new aviation development? If so, shall the Committee then return 
to the specific content of ESL for the area in question to make a more 
conclusive recommendation? If not, should the Committee bypass the ESL 
and proceed directly with its components? 

2. Where existing aviation facilities are in high - medium or above 
sensitivity areas and that rating has been established, should further 
expansion be disallowed? 

3. Where indirect effects of proposed airport facility expansion would 
adversely affect high - medium or above sensitivity areas, should such 
expansion be disallowed? 

4. Where building facilities would adversely affect existing or proposed 
wildlife sanctuaries rated high under the Wildlife Habitat Rating system, 
should such building be disallowed? (The rating system has criteria 
such as unique species, number and diversity of species, productivity, 
etc. ) 

5. Presuming any Bay Fill is bad, should it be allowed if it results in 
substantial public benefits elsewhere, i.e. a reduction of actual or 
potential residential noise exposure, avoidance of prohibitive capital 
cost, avoidance of prohibitive access costs to a substantial number of 
passengers? What are the limits of "feasible?" 

6. How can a recommendation assure that the technological and fiscal 
capacity exists to keep water quality up to state standards in the 
area affected? 

To complete the environmental issue package, the issues posed by this 
report will need to be considered together with the issues posed by the 
separate noise and air pollution reports. 



1 1 1 -61 



BAY FILL * 
ASSUMPTIONS/ ISSUES PAPER 



The Bay as a Unique Concern 

As you know, San Francisco Bay occupies a very special place in the Region 
and its institutions as well as in State legislation. The unique and irreplace- 
able but vulnerable values it offers present and future generations of the 
Region deeply concern citizens, organizations and governments here. 

For example, "Protection and enhancement of the San Francisco Bay and the 
region's environmental qualities and major physical features" is stated goal 
number one of ABAG's Regional Plan to which the Regional Airport Systems 
Study Committee results will be added. But the final word on fill is the 
San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission's. BCDC, one insti- 
gator of a regional airport study, has been a watchful and active ex-officio 
member of the study and will be very interested in its results. 

Airport Fill as an Issue in the BCDC Bay Plan 

Airports occupy a conditionally favored place in BCDC's Bay Plan. The BCDC 
Plan finds that the shoreline of the Bay is a favored location for airports 
due to open space for take offs and landings away from populated areas and 
its convenience to present population centers. In enacting the law under 
which BCDC proceeds, the legislature found and declared that airports are one 
of the few purposes for which fill may be necessary under certain conditions to 
to be determined. BCDC's enforcible San Francisco Bay Plan, (p. 1) reads: 

" ... Some Bay filling may be justified for purposes providing 
substantial public benefits if these same benefits could not 
be achieved equally well without filling. Substantial public 
benefits are provided by: ... (c) developing expanded airport 
terminals and runways if regional studies demonstrate that 
there are no feasible sites for major airport development away 
from the Bay . . . " 

At issue is a definition of "feasible and a demonstration that non-Bay sites 
either fall into or out of the definition. "Feasible" involves any criteria 
that might kill an upland proposal in your judgment: noise, cost, access, 
number, identity of beneficiaries, and governmental arrangements, etc. 

BCDC's Plan called for a regional airport system plan study which would 
address these issues in the context of other factors. 



Prepared for the Regional Airport Systems Study Committee, June 1, 1972. 



1 11-62 



Early Consideration of Bay Fill by RASSC and the Staffs of BCDC and the 
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 



During its September, October and November, 1970 meetings, the Committee 
explored how andwhento best fit fill into its work and what tools might be 
available to demonstrate the effects of various fills. 

The Committee debated two approaches and in effect eliminated #1. 

1. Some members favored analyzing fill along with noise, air pollution, 
capital cost, etc. They tended to assume that it was possible and 
practical to measure relevant effects of various fills. This approach 
took fill as a determining analytical factor from the start rather than 
a residual matter to be brought in later. 

2. Others, including the then Chief Planner of BCDC deemed it more practical 
to investigate Bay fill only if Committee evaluation of the other factors 
favored further facilities in the Bay. While the aggregate effect of all 
fills was clearly detrimental, no studies were likely to demonstrate all 
the specific effects of each individual project, claimed BCDCs Chief 
Planner. 

Staff from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers told the Committee that the Corps 
could make its Bay Model available given adequate advance notice but that the 
Corps would not act as a consultant to evaluate or interpret the results, 
BCDC's Chief Planner stressed two points: 1) For the variables it could measure 
the Model is not precise at the scale required for airports. 2) Only one or two 
experts in the Region could interpret the results and would need to know the 
details of project design for specific fills. 

In view of the doubts and drawbacks an analysis of the effects of specific fills 
was not undertaken. * However, at its November, 1970 meeting, the Committee 
adopted in principle the following motion; "Any plan for airport expansion 
in the Bay will be subject to studies on its effects on the Bay using the Corps 
of Engineers Model and/or other analytical techniques." 

On the verge of RASSC s recommendation, the Bay fill concern now emerges in the 
context of work completed in other areas, public reponse and further BCDC Staff 
suggestions. 

Public Opinion 

In addition to public concern expressed over Bay fill at the RASSC Public 
Hearings, in the press, and in RASSC s newspaper questionnaire, in early May 
over 600 letters, cards and telegrams came opposing Bay fill for airport ex- 
pansion. Most of these likely came in response to an alert from Save San 
Francisco Bay Association. Much of this correspondence favored Travis AFB 
as an alternative to bay fill. 



However approximate acres of fill for RASSC preliminary alternatives 
appear in BCDC December 29, 1971 memo - "Bay fill aspects of ABAG's 
Regional Airport Systems Study." 



111-63 



Present BCDC Staff Advice 



The following timely points are offered by BCDC Staff for your consideration. 

1. There should be a regional growth policy and passenger projections, among 
other things, should be linked to it. This would tie in with a program 
ABAG has already indicated it would undertake. 

2. If the California Corridor traffic is a significant portion of the forecast 
demand, that traffic ought to go to upland sites. While Bay fill is 
permanent an argument for it may be only temporary for California Corridor 
traffic. One eventual alternative to fill for corridor traffic may prove 
to be a fast efficiency ground transit system between here and Los Angeles. 

3. Noise impact only should not justify Bay fill. Again, fill is permanent 
but technological improvements in noise abatement technology may make 
aircraft noise temporary. 

4. In any event, the time has not yet come to fill the Bay for 1985 projections 
which may or may not materialize. There is time left and no need to rush 
into irreversible action. 

5. T hese are significant points BCDC Staff sees now but a thorough review of 
the RASSC recommendations may reveal additional factors which may bear on 
the decision. 

To Fill Or Not To Fill/Issues And Assumptions 

1. Opinion splits on what the issues are according to one's assumptions and 
priorities. The foregoing BCDC staff suggestions raise or answer some 
issues for you, depending on your own assumptions and priorities. Can you 
now assume the future through 1985 clearly enough to recommend permanent 
fill for what may prove to be a temporary need or for projections which may 
not materialize? How imminent is the need to fill the Bay if it were now 
assumed? Is it likely that conflict between Bay preservation and other 
regional concerns can be avoided in the long range? in the short range? 

2. For some of the public, fill would be absolutely out of the question. The 
issue then is how to find and choose non-fill alternatives. If technical 
and political ingenuity couldn't find a "feasible" way then aviation growth 
would be constrained to that extent. For those who would be willing to 
trade off fill among other concerns, the issues and assumptions possible 
multiply and compound. 

3. For some, including BCDC, fill would be justified only as a last resort- 
if and only if its proponents could convincingly demonstrate t hat there is 
no "feasible " way to avoid it. If fill is recommended the selection among 
alternative fills becomes an issue. Which does the least damage? 



1 11-64 



4. How should "feasible" be defined ? Since the definition decides the outcome, 
opinion may differ on what is built or assumed into it. 

"Feasible" here means "acceptable" to a large extent - in the narrow 
sense acceptable to those who could veto or collectively enable a 
proposal - in the wide sense acceptable to the public at large. Any 
aspect which could kill or enable an upland alternative bears on its 
"feasibility". 

What are significant demonstrations or estimates of "feasibility" or "non- 
feasibility". " ' " - - ' 

- airspace feasibility? 

- noise feasibility? 

- access feasibility? 

- capital cost feasibility? 

- financial feasibility? 

- market feasibility? 

- routing feasibility? 

- regional agency feasibility - creation of 
governmental and organizational arrangements 
for new regional airport (s)? 

- etc.? 

Within many of the possible aspects of "feasibility" are included other issues 
and assumptions, many of which have been probed in earlier issue papers. 

5. "Feasibility", has now been brought to the political focus for committee 
recommendations and some political judgments will be necessary. 

Two examples: 

ACCESS vs. FILL - For the sake of the Bay with its wide benefits, what is 
the willingness of the average traveler to sacrifice some convenience for the 
few times a year he or she flies? How important is the problem of connecting 
flights (15% of the total)? 

TRAVIS vs. SACRAMENTO - How important is cutting into Sacramento's projected 
demand with Travis if Bay Fill is at stake? 

While the technical work is important, priorities and willingness are an im- 
portant ingredient of "feasibility" or "acceptability." 



/ 



111-65 



ECONOMIC STUDIES 



Two economic studies were completed, one measuring the costs of airport 
development and the other predicting the economic effects of locating 
airports in various parts of the Region. 

Capital Cost 

Cost estimates are perhaps the least arguable of the planning factors. 
While they may vary with time, the relative costs of different alter- 
natives are not likely to change much. The work done showed the value 
residing in existing facilities, and the extremely high cost of rapid 
transit construction, a factor to be considered particularly in the 
case of remote airport sites. 

Economic Impact 

The economic and spatial effects of alternative airport locations were 
evaluated through the use of an existing complex predictive model 
(the Projective Land Use Model - PLUM). Development, income, and 
revenue impacts were estimated. The study showed that the effects of 
various site locations would spread over very large areas, and suggested 
that location made little difference from a Region-wide economic stand- 
point, although sub-Regional effects would vary. The benefits of 
location would also have to be weighed against the costs shown in the 
other economic study. 



111-67 



CAPITAL COST OF AIRPORT ALTERNATIVES * 



ASSUMPTIONS/ ISSUES PAPER 



INTRODUCTION 

To meet growing aviation demand and make the best use of available economic 
resources, the relative value of any proposed airport alternative must be 
measured against that of other possible alternatives. The capital cost 
report reviewed the preliminary alternatives being considered by the Regional 
Airport Systems Study Committee (RASSC) and estimated their costs on a common 
basis to enable comparison. It is now possible for the Committe to weigh 
these costs against income and other anticipated benefits in order to deter- 
mine the most feasible airport system based upon economic factors. Environ- 
mental and public service factors will then be examined along with these 
findings in order to define the "best" overall alternative. 

REPORT SUMMARY 

Cost estimates based upon costs as of May 1, 1971 were made for 37 alternative 
airport projects at 20 airports in the Bay Region. The levels of development 
considered for scheduled aviation airports were taken from the preliminary 
RASSC alternatives. Generally, the expansion of general aviation airports 
was estimated by using their existing master plans. Addition of rapid transit 
to certain projects brought the cost considerations to a total of 52. 

Estimates reflect order of magnitude accuracy only. Their purpose is 
comparative analysis for planning purposes, rather than the determination of 
specific project costs for budgetary purposes. It was assumed that airports 
would be constructed with public funds, and private funds would then be 
invested for additional facilities. Estimates are therefore for the initial 
public investment only, although the amount of private and public invest- 
ment at existing airports to date is shown. 

The basic factors which were considered in deriving the estimates were: 

Travel and transportation demand, including cargo (from Phase I 
Aviation Forecast ) 

Capacity (from Phase I Airport and Airspace Capacity Analysis ) 
Location 

Suitability of soils 

Design assumptions, including access roads 
Possibility of rapid transit service to the airport 
Time of acquistion and construction 



* Prepared for the Regional Airport Systems Study Committee, Nov. 26, 1971. 



1 11-69 



Cost data was then projected for a number of periods in the future. This 
was done by estimating inflation rates for the future periods and applying 
them to the 1971 data. The four bench mark years chosen for the analysis 
were 1971, 1975, 1980, and 1985, these included three time frames, 1971-75, 
1975-80, and 1980-85. The three major components of a project - land, building 
construction, and heavy construction - escalate at different rates and were 
therefore considered individually. 

Finally, to reduce the projected costs to a common basis, the present value 
method of analysis was employed: a discount rate was applied to all of the 
estimates for future time periods. Discounting for a present value analysis 
and inflation do affect each other and may be, in some measure, offsetting. 
They are, however, independently acting economic forces and were computed 
separately. Using both of these factors, a means of comparing projects at 
different time periods was achieved. 

ASSUMPTIONS 

Following are the assumptions used in the capital cost analyses, to be 
reviewed and evaluated by the Committee: 

1. Cost data for future time periods were calculated by use of inflation 
factors. Both a high and a low inflation rate were estimated for 
heavy construction and building construction. It was assumed in the 
calculations that the current high trend of cost escalation will 
continue to 1975 at a slightly decreasing rate, and the period 1975-85 
will fall into the mean between the high and low escalation trends. 

2. A 5% discount rate was used throughout the present value analysis, with 
the assumption that all projects would be subject to the same interest rate 

3. A contingency allowance of 15% was included in cost evaluation. 

4. Rapid transit costs were estimated at $20 million per mile, except for 
the three major airports. For each of these, an allowance of $50 million 
(total) was made. While the cost of rapid transit may exceed this figure 
at these three airports, the exact percentage of the total cost that 
would be borne by the individual airport is not presently known (see 
Issue #2), and the $50 million figure was offered by the airport managers 
as an interim figure. 

5. Engineering and architectural services were not included in cost 
estimates since they can vary widely. 

6. Given no discernible current pattern, it was arbitrarily assumed that 
airports having a 1971 estimated public investment of less than $5 million 
would have an additional private investment of approximately 10%. For 
airports of $5 to $25 million, it was assumed. that 75% would be public and 
25% private. Airports of $25 to $50 million were assumed to be 50%-50% 
(see Issue #3). 



111-70 



7. Certain design assumptions about required land, buildings, access roads, 
and facilities (towers, runways and taxiways, parking, cargo handling, 
etc.) had to be made for both general and scheduled aviation airports. 

ISSUES 

From this background and these assumptions, the issues relevant to capital 
cost can be identified: 

1. From the determination of airport costs comes the question of financing. 
While details of financing are not within the responsibility of the RASSC, 
the Committee must be assured that for any alternative chosen, financing 
is possible. * Issues arising from this include: 

A. Since the selected airport system will be regional in scope, 
should its financing also be regional rather than falling on the 
supporting city or county? 

B. How can a regional decision be imposed upon a local body if it 
is decided that financing be allocated to local sources? 

C. Once the financing is allocated, what form should it take; how 
should it be procured? 

2. A. Because rapid transit is an extremely high-cost proposition, 

particularly when long-line sections are necessary, such a 
system will not be economically viable unless heavy usage is 
assured. Such usage may only occur if the airport is surrounded 
by a supporting community which generates additional transit demand. 

B. If rapid transit or other access modes also serve areas surrounding 
the airport, what proportion of their cost can be allocated to the 
airport itself? Once this is determined, who pays the airport's 
portion - airport owners, airlines, city or county supporting the 
airport? - and through what means? 

3. There is now and will probably be in the future great variation among 
airports in public and private investment. Reduction of the proportion 
assumed for the private sector (see Assumption #6) will necessitate 
greater public investment and thus additional funding sources. 

4. There is nothing definitive about the timing of airport acquisition or 
construction beyond the fact that there will be certain levels of 
capacity needed by certain time periods. Because of rapid real estate 
cost escalation, however, early acquisition of land may be desirable. 
The analysis indicates the costs of delay in relation to this. 



* See also the Issue Paper "A Review of Airport Ownership" in the Special 
Study section of this chapter. 



1 11-71 



ECONOMIC AND SPATIAL IMPACT OF ALTERNATIVE AIRPORT LOCATIONS * 



ASSUMPTIONS/ ISSUES PAPER 



INTRODUCTION 

It is conventional wisdom to view airports as substantial contributors to 
the economic vitality and spatial development of the Region and its parts. 
How much they would contribute and where, under simulated airport patterns 
is the question this report addresses. Granted some pattern of airports 
will occur, the report asks: What differences do different airport 
patterns make to the Region and its parts? It is up to the Committee to 
decide what differences the differences make in a regional context. As 
it works toward a regional airport recommendation, the Committee's economic 
findings will then be viewed in the perspective of its other concerns such 
as capital cost, access and environmental quality. 

REPORT SUMMARY 

The economic report, unlike the environmental quality report begins with 
both specific alternatives and an existing modeling process, the Projective 
Land Use Model [PLUM), the heritage of BATSC, RTPC and ABAG, and MTC. 

The economic report estimates selected development, income and revenue 
impacts of eleven simulated airport development combinations chosen by the 
Committee so far. These alternative assignments of passenger capacity to 
a specific combination of airport locations meet the 1985 demand forecast 
in all cases but one - the eleventh alternative which limits growth to 
existing capacity of the three major airports and misses projected demand 
by 35%. This "no growth" eleventh alternative has an additional and unique 
role. It is a useful baseline against which the other alternatives can be 
compared in terms of three groups of variables: 

A. Development effects 

1 . Basic employment 

2. Population serving employment 

3. Popula:ion-number and location 

4. Dwelling units-amount and location 

5. Land area used in urbanization 

B. Income effects (limited to household income, other outlays and 
revenues being hard to trace) 

1. Median household income levels 

2. Aggregate personal income as an indicator of potential 
purchasing power 

3. Potential taxable sales 



Prepared for the Regional Airport Systems Study Committee, November 26, 1971 



1 11-72 



C. Governmental revenue effects 

1 . Sales tax 

2. Income tax 

3. Residential property tax 
and agricultural ) 



(county basis) 

(excluding industrial, commercial, 



Process Sketch 

People who seek the results alone without their origin can skip this process 
sketch and go directly into the "System-wide Results" section. 

In input process * a) identifies the model's zones of basic employment impact 
due to traffic volumes at each airport in each of the eleven given alternatives; 
b) finds relationships between traffic volumes at each airport and changes in 
basic employment by SIC industry categories. Basic employment categories 
were identified as wholesale, air transportation, hotels, and federal government; 
and c) calculated for each alternative land use absorption and basic employment 
numbers. 

The focus of the methodology is on change from the base year (1965) to the 
target year (circa 1985). The baseline runs contain regional growth other 
| than airports. Each of the eleven airport alternatives is tested against 
the baseline run without the aviation employment and the differences are noted 
in the variables examined. Changes in the key variable, basic employment, 
"ripple out" changes in housing, population-serving employment, and the income 
and tax estimates which flow from them according to the modeling process. 

A basic employment gain from the base year to the target year is developed 
under region-wide forecasts of employment and population. That part of the 
employment gain including "basic" employment is allocated to specific zones 
in the region. This allocation "drives" the PLUM model from the base year 
to the target year. The alternatives runs include the simulated alternatives 
for airport growth. 

Basic employment growth generates gains in dwelling units which are allocated 
to vacant land available for residential development. If development gains 
exceed available land in a zone, then the excess is reallocated to zones with 
available land. 

These residences, in turn, attract population-serving employment and facilities 
including retail trade, service facilities, local government, construction , 
finance, etc. 



Mitchell Research Associates, Appendix A, Economic and Spatial Impact 
of Alternative Airport Locations , July 1971, 



111-73 



An allocation rule distributes workers to residences and population-serving 
establishments to residences. It is controlled by a) the model's rules on 
time-distance from the origin and destination zones and b) by the availability 
of "opportunities" at the destinations measured by the residential holding 
capacity of the destination zones. 



Holding capacity is limited to the maximum "feasible" quantity of infra- 
structure (water, sewer, etc.) which can be located in the period from the 
base to the target year. For allocating residents' purchasing power, oppor- 
tunities are measured by base year population-serving employment. 

Growth at places of employment and residence is added to the existing base 
year stocks of business and governments establishment and residence. These 
are the target year forecasts. 

Zonal income levels and zonal mean dwelling estimates are produced by 
regression equations utilizing PLUM output. 

Taxes depend on PLUM income and population projections. Alternative runs 
minus baseline runs give the taxes generated by the specific alternatives. 

System-wide Results 

The report's findings on the variables examined came in the form of computer 
maps and detailed charts at the regional, county, and local level. The focus 
of the RASSC concern is at the regional level and in this context the 
following points stood out. 

1. Four basic industry categories are significantly influenced by 
airport activity levels in the Bay Region: a) air transportation, 

b) hotels, c) wholesale, and d) federal government. Growth ratios have 
been geared to airline passenger growth for these by zone. 

2. Basic industry land requirement averaged between 10-20 employees/acre 
with some spread such as hotels at 90/acre. 

3. For all basic employment in airport zones, the spread for the region 
is 50,000 employees among alternatives which range from 100,000 to 
150,000 "basic" employees. The spread for the four directly airport 
linked basic industry categories (point #1 above) is about 21,000 
basic employees. 

4. At most among the alternatives there is a 2% difference in aggregate 
household income in the region for the target year. The alternatives 
range from 5.5 to 7.5% of total aggregate regional household income. 



holding capacity =Aland available for 

presidential developmen 




1 1 1-74 



5. About half a billion dollars of annual household income is at stake. 
HOLRLV and PREFAC have 1.33 and 1.44 billion while TRAVIS and SFOKNO 
have 1.83 and 1.82 respectively. Some local differences are pronounced. 
Differences are minor in mean income levels among alternatives. 

6. Land absorption is small relative to that available in the region. More 
critical than the amount of land absorbed is its location and value, which 
is not examined in this report. 

7. Built up cities of the region have no population changes of any 
magnitude under any of the alternatives. Localized effects are greatest 
in HOLRLV and TRAVIS. 

8. Residential property tax, the one most relevant to local government today, 
has some important variations. It seems that one would have to know the 
local expenditure side to compare it against in order to demonstrate what 
benefits accrue. 



ASSUMPTIONS 

The following assumptions underlie the economic report. They contain ques- 
tions which the consultants had to answer in doing the work. As such, they 
may be reopened as the Committee reviews and evaluates them. 

1. Each of the eleven alternative allocations on which basic employment 
size depend assumes a passenger loading per operation, a delay level 
and an aircraft mix in arriving at the number of passengers at each 
airport. 

2. Basic employment directly associated with airport location includes 
only that basic employment which would shift location for variation 
in the region's traffic distribution. Such employment is assumed not 
to extend beyond the single airport zone except for SFO which has two 
zones. 

3. Certain ratios for the future were assumed to hold between the number 
of passengers and the various growth rates of the four basic aviation 
industries identified - air transportation, hotels, wholesale trade, 
and federal government - at various sites. The report acknowledges 
the uncertainty involved in telling apart whether it was the airport 
or the good highway network around it that attracted basic industry 
such as wholesale trade. 

4. Growth rates of basic industries other than the four above had to be 
estimated for the affected zones because it was an input requirement 
of the PLUM model . 



111-75 



5. A floating target year was used. It is assumed that this will not 
affect the value of the results so long as the focus is on a comparison 
of the alternatives as measured from a common baseline. The target 
year for RASSC is 1985, for PLUM 1980 and 1990. 

6. PLUM's incremental methodology and data as updated are assumed valid 
enough for the purpose at hand. 

A. Population growth projection depends on State Department of Finance 
projections of April, 1967. Assumed is a long term level of net 
immigration of 300,000 per year to California. 

B. Employment estimates incorporate regional development trends that 
contributed to region-wide growth up to 1965 and which are assumed 
to continue in the future. 

C. Accessibility assumptions for the zonal network are: all locations 
are accessible to all others, and stimulated growth will not reduce 
the assumed degree of access 

D. Specifications of land unusable for policy or topographic reasons 
follows local planning practice. 

E. Zonal detail assumptions control the degree the region fills as 
growth is simulated. 

1. Basic employment occurs at existing 0965) net density. 

2. Residential density-growth in housing stock occurs at existing 
0965) residential density. 

3. Population employment is simulated to locate without 
constraints up to the limit of available land. 

F. Priority of land use -where conflicting demand for land occurs, 
the order or priority is; 

1. Unusable land and open space, including the neutralization or 
stabilization of uses for policy purposes 

2. Industrial vacant land for basic industries and unique locators 
(airports) 

3. Industrial vacant land for population-serving establishments 

4. Other vacant land for basic and population-serving uses 

5. Other vacant land for residential development 

6. Acreage for streets and highways 

7. Income levels and distribution - a 2% per year rate of increase in 1965 
dollars was assumed. 

Substantial changes associated with policy shifts such as geographical 
dispersion of low income families or markedly higher quaranteed incomes 
would change the statistical structure on which the forecasts were 
estimated. 



1 11-76 



8. Tax variables produced at the end of the line of assumptions and 
methodology are meant to be used only as indicators of standards of 
1 iving. 

ISSUES 

Since the report input, assumptions, process and findings could stimulate 
many questions, the following list is not exhaustive. 

1. Did the report reveal useful differences and arrive at them in a 
reasonable way on the basis of reasonably accurate assumptions and 
input data? 

2. Looking at the development and income variables, which a^e most 
significant when it comes to choosing among alternatives from a 
regional standpoint? 

3. Margin of error vs. range, accuracy and significance of results - 
how do they compare? There is a 2% difference in total regional 
household income for 1985 at stake in the choice of alternatives. 
That is a close cut. 

4. Is airport economic impact properly over or understated? Another 
view of economic impact assessment is the multiplier approach. It 
forecasts induced effects, usually two or more times the original 
investment. Dollars are recycled through the economy creating income 
and revenue as they go. The complications inherent in that approach 
are: What is really inducing what? Where does it end? The incre- 
mental approach used in this study is self-1 imiting. It tends to 
deflate the magnitudes potentially ascribable in the multiplier 
approach. Waves vs. ripples. What is an airports influence? 

5. No alternative is optimal for all objectives. For instance, the 
ABAG Regional Plan 1970-1990 aims at both a) strengthening metro- 
poli tan cores and b) starting new city centers at the fringes of the 
metropolitan area. 

Strenthening residential development in metropolitan cores is most 
served by OAKMAX, 0AKGR0, ALGROE and PREFAC. Enhancing employment 
in large communities is most served by OAKMAX, SJEMAX, ALGROE, SJEMX ? 

Starting a new town at the fringe in the region means TRAVIS. 

6. From a regional viewpoint how decisive are economic benefits apt 
to be when compared to capital cost or environmental quality etc? 



111-77 



SPECIAL SUBJECTS 



Many questions and issues arose during the study which were not directly 
covered by the consultants' work. These special subjects were analyzed 
by staff, drawing on some parts of the technical work and with the 
assistance of information provided by other professionals and agencies. 

General Aviation 

The general aviation paper brought together the material which is 
contained throughout the various consultants' reports and then expanded 
upon this information by identifying the assumptions and issues connected 
with it. With the new demand forecast, general aviation forecasts were 
revised from those shown in the first paper. These revisions, together 
with specific allocations, were presented in a second paper and formally 
adopted as part of the final plan. This detailed second paper is 
contained in Appendix A of this report. 

V/STOL 

The V/STOL issue paper resulted in the Committee conclusion that "the 
possibility of future V/STOL facilities and uses in the Bay Area should 
be acknowledged, but specific recommendations cannot be made at this 
time because of the uncertainties of its actual production and use." 
Accordingly, sites which were being considered as V/STOL airports were 
eliminated from the alternatives. 

California Corridor 

California Corridor traffic, the largest single air passenger market area 
for the Bay Area (37% in 1968), was considered as possibly warranting 
facilities separate from those serving other national or international 
markets. Its unique place in the Bay Area transportation picture also 
led to the review of possible alternate transportation modes - V/STOL 
and a high-speed ground transit system.* The final aviation plan recom- 
mendation, in response to the Corridor studies, included in it an airline 
airport at either Hamilton AFB or Napa County Airport to accommodate 
approximately 1 million passengers by 1985 and to serve primarily the 
Corridor traffic for the North Bay counties. 



* These possibilities were later rejected by the Committee - refer to 
"Additional Committee Actions" in Chapter IV. 



111-79 



Sacramento and Bay Area Traffic 



As alternatives were narrowed in the last part of the study, joint use 
of Travis AFB remained a good possibility for recommendation. The Study 
Committee then heard testimony from the Director of Aviation for Sacra- 
mento County concerning possible airspace and passenger market conflicts 
with Sacramento Metropolitan Airport at certain development levels for 
Travis. An issue paper was prepared on this subject. It was supplemented 
by testimony from the FAA regarding airspace.* Using this information, 
the Committee limited the traffic levels for Travis to 1 million annual 
passengers by 1980 and 6 million by 1985. At these levels, no significant 
conflicts with Sacramento traffic would occur, and the activity could be 
accommodated at Travis without disruption of the Air Force mission at 
that base. 

Airport Ownership 

Finally, the problems surrounding airline scheduling, operational control, 
airport costs, and management and administration led to a paper discussing 
airport ownership and authorities. The issues raised were among the 
reasons for the establishment of a regional forum for continued communi- 
cation and coordination of these problems.** 



* Refer to Chapter VII for this testimony. 

** Refer to Chapter VIII for a discussion of this forum 



111-80 



GENERAL AVIATION IN THE BAY REGION* 



ASSUMPTIONS/ ISSUES PAPER 



INTRODUCTION 

While there was not a separate report prepared in the Regional Airport 
Systems Study for general aviation, information about it appears in many 
of the technical reports prepared for the Regional Airport Systems Study 
Committee (RASSC).** 

There has been a concern expressed that the study has not focused clearly 
enough on general aviation airports and aircraft operations. The purpose 
of this issue paper is to bring together the significant material on 
general aviation from the various reports, to identify the major assump- 
tions used in developing the study material, and to present to the RASSC 
the issues that involve general aviation. 

BRIEF ORIENTATION 

General aviation (g/a) suffers from the negative definition usually used - 
"all aviation activity except airline and military aviation" - because that 
definition describes what it is not rather than what it is. 



General aviation includes a wide range of users: 

- personal transportation 

- business transportation 

- commercial applications 

aerial photography and mapping 
construction support 
aerial agricultural applications 
news media 

air taxi, charter, and rental 

- recreational uses 

soaring 
skydi ving 
aerobatics 
antique aircraft 



* Prepared for the Regional Airport Systems Study Committee February 8, 1972 

** See the attachment to this issue paper for a summary of specific 
references to general aviation in each of the RASS reports. 



Ill -81 



- public safety 

pol ice 

traffic reporting 

fire fighting and surveillance 

rescue 

air ambulance 
-educational 

flight training 
vocational training 
experimental aircraft 

What does general aviation mean with respect to a regional system of 
airports? What is its significance to the public of the Bay Region and 
its requirements for resources of the Region? 

Long-standing arguments over general aviation and the provision of public 
facilities for its use range from: 

A. It has a broad public benefit like a highway or golf course 
and should, therefore, not have to be financially self- 
sufficient. 

to: 

B. It benefits a very small group of wealthy people; its 
advantages are, for all practical purposes, not available 
to most citizens and therefore should not involve public 
ownership of facilities; or, if public ownership is involved, 
facilities should be financially self-sufficient, including 
recovery of all costs of land value, operating costs, and 
depreciation. 

In actual application of public policy in city and county airport owner- 
ships, we began after World War II with argument "A" and have, in recent 
years, moved closer to "B". This trend is evidenced by: 

- state imposed user tax in the form of a general 
aviation fuel tax 

- higher lease costs for commercial operators 

- significantly higher aircraft storage fees 

- higher flowage fees for general aviation fuel 

- federally imposed users' charges to general aviation 
aircraft in the form of fuel tax and registration fee 

- the change of stature from separate aviation departments 
of local government to a division of public works 

Just what function general aviation has will be an important determination 
for the RASSC to make in order to judge its importance relative to other 
airspace and airport users, and to judge which aspects of general aviation 
are of a regional character and which are purely local in character. 



II 1-82 



A COMPENDIUM OF FINDINGS AND ASSUMPTIONS 



Inventory 

- Of the 34* airports available for public use in the nine- 
county region, 17 are publicly owned and 17 are privately 
owned . 

- As of January 1, 1969, there were about 18,000 active 
licensed pilots in the Bay Area, about 0.4% of the total 
population. 

- Many of the general aviation airports in the Region receive 
extensive use during busy days from aircraft not based at 
that airport. 

- Of the 3,300,000 annual general aviation operations in the 
Bay Area in 1969, 1,900,000 (58%) were training flights that 
remained in the local airport control zone. 

- Only one runway** being used exclusively by general aviation 
has an Instrument Landing System (ILS). 

- There is significant use made of the airspace in areas over 
and adjacent to the Bay between flight altitudes 2500-3500' msl 
by g/a training under Visual Flight Rules (VFR). 

- There were about 3,000 general aviation aircraft based in the 
Bay Area as of January 1, 1970. 

Forecast 

- About 11,000 g/a aircraft will be based in the Bay Area by 1985. + 

- There will be 11 million annual g/a operations in 1985.+ 

- In certain parts of the Bay Region, there is today a constraint 
upon g/a aircraft ownership based upon the lack of convenient 
airport facilities. The forecast assumes a continuation of 
that constraint. 



* This number has been revised from the 35 indicated in the original 

Inventory Report to reflect the recent closing of Coddingtown, a private 
airport in Santa Rosa. 

** Oakland, North Airport (another will soon be added at Sonoma County 
Airport in Santa Rosa) 

+ Refer to Appendix A for revisions. 



111-83 



Access 



- The existing state and local highway systems provide 
adequate capacity for access to g/a airports in the Region. 

- Only three cities, Richmond, San Pablo, and El Cerrito, 
are more than 15 miles from existing g/a airports.* 

Economic Benefits 

- The direct benefits from g/a airports would appear to 
accrue to the users. 

- While employment levels at g/a airports may have local 
significance, they were too small to include in the Regional 
economic impact analysis. 

Capital Cost 

- To improve the existing publicly owned g/a airports to the 
ultimate development shown on their airport master plans 
would cost $21.4 million. 

- To acquire and improve the privately owned airports at Fremont, 
Antioch, and Petal uma would cost $5.5 million. 

- A new, large g/a airport in the Richmond area, located on 
Bayfill, would cost $17. 8, million. 

Environmental Quality 

- If the 1985 demand of 11 million annual operations is achieved, 
general aviation would contribute about 70 tons of emissions 
per day. This is disbursed over the nine-county area and 
would be: 

- 2% of the estimated 1985 total emissions for 
the Bay Area** 

- 25% of the total 1985 aviation emissions for the 
Bay Area 

- With the exception of airports accommodating regular business 
jet traffic, existing g/a airports would meet the proposed State 
of California noise standards for operating levels of 100,000 to 
200,000 annual operations. Some airports would not meet those 
criteria above those levels. 



If San Francisco Airport is considered as not being available for general 
aviation, then the City of San Francisco can be added to the three. 

This assumes that all automobiles will meet 1975 federal standards by 1985 
and that no further improvement to today's aircraft engine will occur. 



111-84 



Capacity 



Business jet traffic greater than 1% at g/a airports with 
more than 200,000 annual operations will extend the 30 NEF 
contour line beyond the normal property boundary of the airport, 

Development of a g/a airport at the Pt. Isabel site in Richmond 
is estimated* to involve 265 acres of Bayfill. 



- ILS facilities are available to g/a at Oakland North Airport 
and will soon be available at Sonoma County Airport. A 
report by the FAA** suggests additional ILS training capabil- 
ity at Half Moon Bay Airport and possibly at Tracy in San 
Joaquin County. 

- The combined capacity of existing public use airports that 
have only g/a traffic is about 7 million annual operations.*** 

- If g/a airport development occurs as shown on the master plans, 
capacity would rise to about 8 million annual operations.*** 
This assumes the continued availability of the existing 
privately owned airports. 

- If San Jose, Napa, Buchanan Field, and Livermore were to be 
used extensively for airline operations, a reduction in 
capacity available to g/a could occur. 

ISSUES 

The following are issues that relate to general aviation: 

1. At airports where airline traffic exists, should airline traffic growth 
have precedence over general aviation traffic? 

2. Should curfews or operational limitations be placed upon business jet 
aircraft for noise abatement? 



* By Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) 

No. California Committee for Airspace Utilization, Report of Task 
Group #7, January 1972. 

*** Oakland North Airport is included, but San Jose and San Francisco are not. 



111-85 



3. Can the capacity of 8 million annual operations be stretched to 
accommodate the forecast of 11 million by redistributing the time of 
use, increasing the average delays, and dispensing with training 
flights during peak periods? 

4. How will the capacity now provided by privately owned airports be 
assured for the future? 

5. Can airspace be reserved for g/a VFR training areas? 

6. What will be the effect of a Terminal Control Area on general aviation? 

7. Will Oakland North Airport and Santa Rosa ILS's be sufficient for g/a 
instrument training? 

8. Is it possible to justify new g/a airports in the urbanized parts of 
the Bay Area? 

9. Who should fund improvements to existing or new g/a airports? 

10. How do you distinguish between g/a airports with "regional significance" 
and those that are of purely local concern? 



111-86 



REFERENCES TO GENERAL AVIATION IN REGIONAL AIRPORT SYSTEMS STUDY REPORTS 

Aviation Forecast : Pages 11-10 through 11-13; Chapter VII 

Airport and Airspace Capacity Analysis : Pages 4-27 through 4-33; 

Appendices E and F 

Airport Access : Pages 3-44 through 3-48 

Airport Inventory : Pages 16 through 19; Appendix B-2; Appendices D and E 

Aviation Effect on Air Quality : Pages 1 1-4 and 1 1 -5 ; 111-15; IV-4 through IV-9; 

IV-13 through IV-15; V-6 through V-ll 

Aviation Noise Evaluations and Projections : Pages IV-30 through IV-43; 

IV-53 through IV-60 

Capital Cost Analysis of Airport Alternatives : Sections of Chapter IV; Pages 

VI-5 through VI-8; VI-10 
through VI-13 



111-87 



VERTICAL AND SHORT TAKE-OFF AND LANDING AIRCRAFT * 



ASSUMPTIONS/ ISSUES PAPER 



INTRODUCTION 

One of the technologies that the Regional Airport Systems Study Committee 
(RASSC) will have to evaluate is vertical and short take-off and landing 
aircraft (V/STOL). This evaluation is particularly important because the 
facilities requirements and their location are substantially different from 
those of conventional airplanes. 

Three of the RASS technical reports refer to STOL; one involved airspace 
capacity, ** another forecast, *** and another capital cost. **** This paper 
has been prepared to review the STOL portion of these reports and to add to 
them some information from other technical sources. 

BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE RASS REPORTS 

The FORECAST report assumed: 

- there will be no V/STOL application in the Bay Area before the 1980' 

- between 1980 and 1985 a limited amount of V/STOL service may be 
introduced into the 100 to 400 mile markets 

- no aircraft is economically viable with less than 95 seats 

The AIRSPACE CAPACITY report said, with respect to various STOL site locations: 

Concord - with proper coordination with Oakland, Alameda NAS, and 
Travis AFB, there would be no airspace restrictions on any 
existing airports 

Livermore - no restrictions on any existing airports 

Santa Rosa - no restrictions on any existing airports 

Richmond - this site would seriously affect both the Alameda NAS 
departures and those of Oakland. The resulting conflict would 
also have an adverse effect upon the capacity of the Richmond site 
itself. Departure paths from Richmond would need to be restricted 
to avoid conflict with Hamilton AFB. 



* Prepared for the Regional Airport Systems Study Committee, March 17, 1972 

** R. Dixon Speas Assoc., Airport and Airspace Capacity Analysis , Oct. 1971 
CPhase II) 

*** Systems Analysis and Research # Corp. , Aviation Forecast , May 1970 

**** Bechtel , Inc., Capital Cost Analysis of Airport Alternatives , Oct. 1971 



111-88 



Pier 42 - there would be conflict between arrivals to Pier 42 
and Alameda NAS departures, causing the traffic at the two 
facilities to be handled on a one-for-one basis. There would 
be a similar blocking of OAK departures. 

San Carlos - if overflight of the communities to the west of 
the San Carlos airport were possible, * then STOL could operate 
there without restriction to any other existing airport. 

The CAPITAL COST report said that the cost of providing for STOL ** at 
the following airports would be: 

Annual Passenger Capacity 
Place (mi 11 ions) Cost 

Concord 2.4 $11,857,000 

Livermore 1.2 9,454,000 

Santa Rosa 7.5 11,200,000 

Richmond 4.4 34,136,000 



OTHER SOURCES OF INFORMATION 

Attached to this paper is a select bibliography of other sources of infor- 
mation about V/ST0L. Those that apply to the Bay Area are summarized as 
follows: 

N0RCALST0L *** - A STOL advocacy group formed by the San Francisco 
Chamber of Commerce and under contract to NASA Ames Laboratories, 
completed a study of Bay Area STOLport locations. Their report in- 
vestigated the following STOLport sites: 

1. Central Bay ( a floating structure north of Treasure Island 
and west of the Berkeley Marina) 

2. Treasure Island 

3. Crissy Army Airfield, Presidio 

4. China Basin, San Francisco (Southern Pacific yards) 

5. Mission Rock, San Francisco (Piers 48-56 area) 

6. India Basin, San Francisco (north of Hunter's Point, Butchertown 
Redevelopment Project 

7. West Oakland (near the new Postal Distribution Center) 



* Noise considerations have recently led to an additional concept in this 
type of aircraft - Quiet Short Take-off and Landing (Q/ST0L) 

** These estimates include a varying amount of general aviation capability 
as well as STOL 

*** See bibliography, number 7 



III -89 



The report presumes that STOL is necessary and concentrates on 
seven sites that have a high "site opportunity." The report's 
purpose is "to provide an information resource for local community 
groups in San Francisco and Oakland. It will enable them to evaluate 
the problems and opportunities, costs and benefits of having a STOLport 
as a neighbor..." (page 3) 

UNITED AIRCRAFT RESEARCH LABORATORIES * - This report showed that nine 
of the Bay Area's helicopter routes could demonstrate viability without 
subsidy. 

MCDONNELL DOUGLAS ** - This report studied the use of a four jet-engine 
STOL airplane of 100 to 200 passenger capacity operating between the Bay 
Area and Los Angeles. The 125,500 to 233,600 pound airplane was studied 
for use at Crissy Army Air Facility, Oakland, and San Carlos. 

BOEING CO. *** - Under contract to NASA Ames Laboratories, Boeing con- 
ducted a study of V/ST0L in intra-urban service in the Bay Area. None 
of the systems studied was capable of covering other than the direct 
cash operating costs. Even with 2/3 federal funding of the capital 
investment, local subsidy would be required. 

SPUR **** - SPUR completed an analysis of the N0RCALST0L report and 
concluded, "If a permanent short take-off and landing airport is required 
to serve the central part of the Bay Region, such a facility would be 
best located in Oakland, just south of the Bay Bridge. Because of the 
compact, tightly-knit and mixed-use characteristics of San Francisco's 
urban development, there is no place in the city for a STOLport. An 
experimental project to demonstrate the potential importance and viability 
of the STOL concept should be designed with the most favorable conditions, 
so the case is not stacked against STOL. To guarantee this, the demon- 
stration should await the commencement of BART operations, and should take 
place at the Alameda Naval Air Station..." (page 1) 

BCDC ***** - The "Possible Bay Planning Conclusions" regarding V/ST0L 
were: "V/ST0L ports and heliports to serve the airports, intra-regional 
and short-haul traffic (e.g. Sacramento, Stockton, Monterey) will be 
needed close to most or all major population and commercial centers. Such 
facilities need close proximity to the center served, access to the local 
transportion system and to parking, and special attention in site selection 
to minimize the noise problem to the immediate surrounding area. .." (page 1) 



See bibliography, number 10 

See bibliography, number 6 

See bibliography, number 4 

See b.ibl iography, number 9 

See bibliography, number 3 ' 

111-90 



ISSUES 



Unlike existing aviation services, the V/STOL concept is, for all practical 
purposes, just that - concept. The Committee should not take V/STOL as a 
"given" but should review the following issues for "truths" which can indicate 
the extent to which facilities may be needed. 

That the "truths" about V/STOL are still greatly open to evaluation can be 
seen from the wide variation of opinion shown in the following quotes from 
press sources: 

" A CAB planning study issued by the Bureau of Economics said that 
existing aerospace technology can bring about commercial STOL service 
in the early 1970's and VTOL service by 1980. The study cited an 
industry consensus of opinion that the country's short-haul transportati 
system will begin with STOL aircraft, evolving gradually to the ultimate 
establishment of a VTOL system. . .Despite some of the rosy predictions, 
buried at the back of the study is a capsule account of the biggest 
obstacle to date: uncertainty by all parties on where V/STOL as an 
air transport system is headed. Development of STOL and VTOL ports 
appears tied up in political and economic considerations... because 
'civil authorities are reluctant to commit high-priced land areas and 
expensive construction costs for a transportation system that does not 
exist and for which the outcome is in doubt 1 ..." 

Aviation Daily , March 30, 1970, page 182 

" FAA has proposed development of a Vertical Short Take-off and Landing 
short haul system that will serve the city center or other major urban 
sites with significant percentages of origin/destination traffic. We 
have proposed that this system be initiated as soon as possible at a 
level the present state of the art will support. FAA is convinced 
of the need for and the acceptability of a V/STOL short haul service." 

Aviation Daily , April 16, 1971, page 276 

" Difficulty in expanding aviation facilities in New York, the heart of 
the Northeast Corridor, was the main factor in the elimination of STOL 
and VTOL from consideration for massive federal investment during the 
current decade. . .Problems with ground access to existing airports will 
increase, and would do so drastically if V/STOL were utilized. With 
most of the flights moving during the usual peak-hour periods, total 
travel time by air would become unacceptably long because of ground as 
well as runway and airway delays... There is no possibility of moving 
V/STOL operations from existing airports to mid-city locations because 
of local opposition based on noise, pollution, and safety factors... 
Passenger acceptance of VTOL at this time was also considered doubtful.. 

Aviation Week and Space Technology , October 4, 1971, p. 31 



111-91 



" Prospective passengers and the general public - two overlapping groups 
that usually were not considered until much later phases - are now 
being .looked upon as dominant design limitations in the development of 
a viable vertical or short-take-off and landing (V/STOL) transport 
system... Airlines interested in STOL aircraft for shorter-haul city- 
center routes ran into difficulties long before they got to technological 
problems. Initial proposals met adamant and intense public opposition." 

Aviation Week and Space Technology , March 6, 1972, p. 21 

" Despite talk of quiet, short haul, low density STOL aircraft devel- 
opment, the market for such aircraft seems questionable. None of 
the 161 commuter carriers serving short haul, low density markets - 
and receiving no subsidy - could afford in the foreseeable future 
the mul ti-million-dollar aircraft envisioned by manufacturers." 

Aviation Daily , January 24, 1972, page 121 

These then, are the issues: 

1. What transportation functions can V/STOL perform? 

2. Does V/STOL provide a unique service not available to the public in other 
transport modes or combinations of modes? 

3. Is the "uniqueness" of V/STOL benefits sufficient to warrant a sizeable 
investment in public and private resources for this technology? 

4. What are the characteristics of the V/STOL vehicle necessary to perform 
the service? 

5. Can the V/STOL vehicle be compatible with existing communities? 

6. Can the flight characteristics of the V/STOL vehicle aid in sound abate- 
ment at existing airports? 

7. Will V/STOL application cause negative airspace capacity effects upon 
existing airports? 

8. If V/STOL is a viable system, when will facilities need to be provided, 
where, and by whom? 

9. Will BART connections to the existing or future airports do a "better" 
job of door-to-door transportation for the public? 

10. Would the Department of Transportation conclusion that STOL would have 
only a limited application in the Northeastern part of the U.S. in the 
1980's apply also to the Bay Area. 



Ill -92 



BIBLIOGRAPHY 



1. Aerospace Industries Assoc. of America, Inc., STOL Aircraft Future 

Trends , May 1971 . 

2. Bay Conservation and Development Commission, Airports on the Bay , 

September, 1966. 

3. Bay Conservation and Development Commission, Possible Bay Planning 

Conclusions Based on the Report on Airports on the Bay , 
October 6, 1966. 

4. The Boeing Co. (prepared for National Aeronautics and Space Administration), 

Study of Aircraft in Intra-urban Transportation Systems - San 
Francisco Bay Area , September 1971. 

5. The Boeing Co. (before the Civil Aeronautics Board, Washington, D.C.), 

Final Information Response by the Boeing Co. in the Northeast 
Corridor VTOL Investigation , Docket 19078, February 10, 1969. 

6. McDonnell, Douglas, California Corridor STOL System, Feasibil ity Study , 1970. 

7. Multidisciplinary Associates, STOLport Site Selection and Evaluation Study 

for San Francisco and Oakland , prepared for N0RCALST0L of the Greater 
San Francisco Chamber of Commerce, July 1, 1971. 

8. The Rand Corp., (prepared for the Port of New York Authority), The 

Potential of V/STOL Aircraft for Passenger Travel in the New York 
Region , Memorandum RM-5816-PA, August, 1969. 

9. SPUR Report , Report #67, February, 1972. 

10. United Aircraft Research Laboratories, Helicopter Access to San Francisco 

International Airport , Report H-470823-5, May, 1969. 



111-93 



THE CALIFORNIA CORRIDOR 
SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA TO SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA* 



ISSUE PAPER 



INTRODUCTION 

In discussing airline passenger service in the Bay Area, the Committee 
has had occasion to refer to the California travel corridor between the 
San Francisco Bay Area and Southern California. It is the largest single 
air passenger market area for the Bay Area (37% in 1968 with Portland/Seattle 
next at 9%) and is the one that has the greatest effect on the existing airports, 
and potentially on future airports. Because of this, the Committee has requested 
that a separate review of that corridor be prepared. 

- The Corridor has the largest volume of air passenaer traffic 
of any single corridor in the world- 6.7 million passengers in 
1971.** 

- It is the largest single market from the Bay Area- 37% in 1968 
(5.9 million annual passengers), and estimated to be 35% of the 
RASS forecast of 72 million passengers in 1985, or 25 million 
passengers . 

- In October 1970 *** there were 1,061 weekly aircraft departures 
from the Bay Area to Southern California: 

636 from SFO 

220 from OAK 

205 from SJC 
1,061 



* Prepared for the Regional Airport Systems Study Committee, April 3, 1972 
** Twelve months ending September 1971. California PUC form 1504.23 
*** Official Airline Guide, October 15, 1970. 



1 1 1-94 



- PSA is the only airline that serves all three Bay Area airports- 
SFO, OAK, and SJC-and the Los Angeles International Airport. In 
1970, PSA carried: * 



% of Approximate Number of 

Total PSA Passengers PSA Passengers Daily Flights Available 

SFO/LAX 1,005,880 45 13 

OAK/LAX 638,513 28 8 

SJC/LAX 621,958 27 9 

2,226,351 100 ~~ 

■ In the total two-way movement of people in 1966 in the Bay Area/Southern 
California corridor, it has been estimated that: ** 

6,700,00 went by auto (57%) 

200,000 went by bus 

100,000 went by rail (1%) 
4,800,000 went by air (42%) 

■ By comparison, it is estimated that the Los Angeles/San Diego corridor 
generated 47,000,000 people-trips in 1969, 92% of whom went by automobile.*** 

■ In 1970 and 1971 when the U.S. domestic trunk airlines were experiencing 
a reduced enplaned passenger growth rate (a 2.7% decl ine in 1970 and 1.8% 
increase in 1971), **** the two California intra-state carriers, PSA and 
Air California, experienced a growth of 9% and 12% respectively. ***** 

- The effect of service in the corridor on traffic generation from a community 
may be exemplified by the introduction of PSA service between San Jose and 
Los Angeles in May 1966. ****** 

Annual PSA Passengers Total SJC Passengers 

1965 - 126,247 

1966 258,454 416,850 

1967 578,550 714,680 

1968 727,830 1 ,071 ,434 

1969 (figures not available) 1,565,143 

1970 " 1,595,153 

1971 11 1 ,704,748 



* California Public Utilities Commission 

** California Department of Aeronautics 

*** McDonnell Douglas Corp. 

**** Air Transport Association, Air Transport , 1971. 

***** Aviation Week 

****** Civil Aeronautics Board Docket No. 51194, Exhibit SJC-13, 
SJC-14: also current airport records 

111-95 

II 



The Sacramento experience in the Los Angeles market was a dramatic 
jump in passengers uDon the introduction of low-cost intra-state 
service: * 



Sacramento to Los Angeles 



One Way 
Lowest Fare 



Total 
Annual 
Passengers 



Propeller Jet 



Year 



Uni ted Ai rl i nes 
& Western 



PSA 



1965 



228,930 
248,960 
478,559 
521.768 
559,793 



228,930 
248,960 
280 ,680 
232,779 
210,190 



$20.45 
13.33 



S24. 75 1966 

15.24 1967 

15.24 1968 

16.19 1969 



197,879 
288,989 
349 ,603 



STATEMENT OF ISSUES 

- Do additional airport service points need to be provided in the Bay 
Area to connect to the Corridor? 

- Will STOL-type aircraft be able to compete in the Corridor with 
conventional aircraft? 

- How plausible is a high speed ground system connecting the Bay Area 
to Southern California? When might it be available? 

- While new service points to the Corridor traffic could reduce ground 
access traffic, 

(1) they might not significantly reduce aircraft operations 
at existing ai rports . 

(2) they may increase the complexity of the airspace. 



* Roy Gil fix, Analysis of the Adequacy of Air Service at Sacramento 
California , March, 1971. Also current airport records and Official 
Airline Gui des . 



111-96 



RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SACRAMENTO AND THE BAY AREA 
AIR TRAFFIC AMD PASSENGER MARKET 



ISSUE PAPER 



INTRODUCTION 

The RASSC has recently received comments from Sacramento County's 
Director of Aviation concerninq the effects upon mutually shared 
airspace and passenger markets if the Bay Area were to identify a 
future joint civil/military use for Travis AFB. The County's plans 
for Sacramento Metropolitan Airport involve exDansion from today's 
1.5 million annual passengers and 42,000 operations to 9 million 
passengers and 220,000 annual operations by 1990. The RASS alternatives 
to date would identify Travis as having a civilian use of: 



Annual Passengers Annual Onerations 
(millions) (thousands) 



in 1980 3 39 

5 59 

in 1985 7 70 

13 130 

18 180 

24 2^0 



This paper will review information prepared for the Committee on airspace 
and will provide some staff evaluations on the nassenger market areas. 

AIRSPACE 

1. In their Phase 1 reDort, Sneas identified the Sacramento airspace as 
being the most complex and heavily loaded in 1969, but still well below 
that requiring any special attention. In the future loadings of tv/o 
million airline, military and general aviation operations into the 100- 
mile-square controlled airsoace around the Bay Area, there were several 
areas that could become very heavily loaded - of which Sacramento was 
one. ** Based on alternative procedures and new technoloqv, Sneas con- 
cluded these could be satisfactorily handled and that transition and 
enroute airspace would not be a limitation in the Bay Area up to two 
million operations annually. 

2. In the analysis of Travis AFB in their Phase 11 report, Sneas identified 
the major airspace conclict to be in the area south west of Travis and 
to involve Napa and Concord onerations. Speas concluded that these con- 
flicts could be procedurally resolved with altitude separations and use 
of Runway 14-32 at Concord for departures. Based on this determination, 
Speas concluded that Travis could, with a new runway (5000 1 senaration) 
and joint use of all three runways, accommodate; 



* Prepared for the Regional Airport Systems Study Committee, May 26, 1972 

** Ih£,. others were Wood side (the most serious), Salinas, Los Banos, Decoto 
HaTf Moon Bav, and Mt. Hamilton 

1 1 1-97 



Hourly Capacity 

Practical VFR - 121 
IFR - 121 

Peak - 147 
Annual Capacity 

Military - 121 ,000 operations 

Civil - up to 430,000 operations 

Travis, with civilian traffic, was not a part of the FAA's analysis done 
by the National Aviation Facilities Experimental Center. * 

"Operations within the Sacramento terminal area are primarily generated 
by four airports, ie. Metropolitan, Executive, McClellan AFB and Mather 
AFB. Although Travis AFB is located outside of the designated Sacramento 
Terminal area, its air traffic may receive direct routings through the 
Sacramento area and as such must be considered as part of the Sacramento 
complex; traffic associated with Yuba County Airport and Beale AFB create 
minimum air traffic information." 

(p. 4-1**) 

"Although turbojet aircraft enroute to or from San Francisco Bay Area 
airports are normally at relatively high altitudes, a significant volume 
of turboprop and piston aircraft pass through the study airspace at or 
below 10,000 feet. Allocation of airspace for this traffic has a quan- 
titative effect upon area operations." ^ 4„-|**) 

"In order to more efficiently handle increased traffic volumes in the future, 
and to effectively implement improved terminal area traffic flows, it is 
recommended that Travis and McClellan RAPC0NS be combined into a single 
control agency with control boundaries adjusted to meet terminal air 
traffic airspace requirements. This will have a further benefit of 
facilitating tower enroute service between Sacramento and the Bay 
Area." 

(p. 4-6**) 

"The 1990 forecast demand for these airports may not necessarily reach 
these high IFR levels, in which case the complexity ratings will be on 
the high side. However, as will be shown, even at these high rates the 
resultant complexities leave little doubt that, with minor route modi- 
fications, Sacramento Metropolitan and Sacramento Executive traffic can 
be absorbed within existing airspace." 

(p. 4-18 **) 

"It is apparent that southbound traffic out of the Sacramento area may 
have to be routed east of the Linden/Stockton area, or tunneled under 
the Oakland-San Francisco east-west traffic. Additional corrective 
action would result with greater dispersal of routes which currently 
converge on both Linden and Stockton. In addition, the current practice 
of routing Bay Area traffic over Sacramento would be undesirable with the 
Sacramento Airport system operating at high and "by-pass" routing should be 
established for Bay Area traffic. 

The transitional airspace relating to the Sacramento area will be able to 
support both the system increase and local traffic increase to the 1990 
period with little required modification of existing route structure." 

(p. 4-20**) 



* O'Brien, Paul J., A Dynamic Simulation Study of Air Traffic Capacity 
in the S.F. Bay Terminal Area, Auqust 1971 

II 1-98 



"#2. Bay Area "by-pass" routes should be established to prevent intermixing 
the low performance (low altitude) category of this traffic with Sacramento 
area arrival/departure activity. 

#5. Congested airspace and lack of maneuvering area east of Metropol i tan 
Airport, resulting from the McCl el lan/Mather AFB complex, will inhibit, to 
some extent, the ultimate capacity of the airport. 

#7. Beale AFB, Yuba County and Travis AFB are sufficiently separated from 
the Metropolitan, Executive, McClellan AFB and Mather AFB complex to permit 
those facilities to operate independently. 

#8. Any future development of IFR capabilities in the area (establishment 
of new IFR airports or conversion of existing VFR fields to IFR), must be 
carefully evaluated as to effect on existing systems." 

(p. 2-1**) 

5, The FAA Airspace Utilization Committee's review of the question of conflict 
between joint military/civil use of Travis found: "However, the study 
revealed that with some significant changes in the use of this airspace 
and with possible provision of some additional navigational aids, the Travis 
AFB operations as identified" (up to 404,000 civil instrument operations 
per year) ir could be accommodated from an airspace use standpoint..." 



R . D . Spea s . , Sacramento County Airspace and Airport Capacity Analysis , 
February, 197T7 



1 1 1-99 



Shared Passenger Market 



The question raised by Sacramento with respect to shared passenger market 
involves two issues (1) which passengers now using Sacramento Metropolitan 
Airport (SMF) would be diverted to Travis, and (2) if Travis is a large 
regional airport, wouldn't it eclipse SMF h s ability to obtain and/or retain 
airline service to multiple locations. 

Starting with the first of these issues, staff has prepared a table of travel 
times from various cities in the potential shared market area to the various 
airports. 



TABLE 1 



GROUND TRAVEL TIMES 
(1980 Highways) 



Central Business 






Airports 






Districts Of: 


SMF* 


TRAVIS 


OAK 


SFO 


SJC 


Fairfield 


58 


11 


84 


102 


107 


Napa 


72 


36 


57 


75 


86 


Vallejo 


77 


41 


45 


64 


76 


Ben i c i a 


77 


41 


49 


69 


69 


Concord 


84 


54 


34 


52 


55 


Antioch 


98 


66 


49 


67 


70 


Pittsburg 


93 


62 


45 


64 


66 


Walnut Creek 


90 


58 


33 


52 


55 


Richmond 


92 


63 


31 


49 


64 


Vacaville 


43 


28 


63 


82 


87 


Davis 


22 


29 


100 


113 


124 



These are based on map distance's at 50 mph via 1-80, State Routes 113 
and 16. 



I 11-100 



From the unpublished survey of California airline passenger origins and 
destinations * the following estimates were obtained: 

TABLE 11 

SOLANO COUNTY/LOS ANGELES COUNTY 71 ,400 annual passengers 

...through LAX 

SFO-LAX 46,000 annual passengers 

OAK- LAX 14,500 
SMF-LAX 2,500 

subtotal 63,000 

...through Hoi lywood/Burbank 

SFO-BUR 2,700 

OAK-BUR 2,300 

SMF-BUR 

subtotal 5,000 

SOLANO COUNTY/PORTLAND, OREGON 17,300 annual passengers 

. . .through Portland 

SFO-PDX 13,200 

OAK-PDX 4,100 

subtotal 17,300 

SOLANO COUNTY/RIVERSIDE COUNTY 4,150 annual passengers 

SMF-OMT 1 ,070 

all Bay Area-ONT 3,080 

subtotal 4,150 

NAPA COUNTY/LOS ANGELES COUNTY 23,200 annual passengers 

. . .through LAX 

SFO-LAX 4,700 

OAK-LAX 7,200 

subtotal 11,900 

...through BUR 

SFO-BUR 2,700 

OAK- BUR 4,900 

subtotal 7,600 



* Daniel, Mann, Johnson and Mendenhall , for the California Dept. of Aeronautics 



1 11-101 



NAPA COUNTY/LOS ANGELES COUNTY continued 

...through ONT 

SMF-ONT 1 ,800 annual passengers 

SFO-ONT 600 

OAK-ONT ' 1,000 

subtotal 3,400 

CONTRA COSTA COUNTY/LOS ANGELES COUNTY .. .251 ,200 annual passengers 

. . .through LAX 

SFO-LAX 59,300 

OAK-LAX 136,600 

subtotal 195,900 

. . .through BUR 

OAK-BUR 41 ,200 

subtotal 41 ,200 

...through ONT 

SFO-ONT 1,600 

OAK-ONT 6,600 

subtotal 8,200 

SACRAMENTO COUNTY/LOS ANGELES COUNTY.... 352,000 annual passengers 

. . .through 

SMF-LAX 283,000 

SFO-LAX 9 ,600 

SCK-LAX 500 

subtotal 293,100 

. . .through BUR 

SMF-BUR 40,200 

OAK-BUR 1 ,200 

subtotal 41 ,400 

...through ONT 

SMF-ONT 15,700 

SACRAMENTO COUNTY/CENTRAL REGION 61 ,400 annual passengers 

OF USA 

via SMF 53,800 

SFO 7,400 

SCK 200 

subtotal 61 ,400 



II 1-102 



SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY/LOS ANGELES COUNTY 



36,900 annual passengers 



.through LAX 

SMF-LAX 13,600 

SFO-LAX 700 

OAK-LAX 5,800 

SCK-LAX 15,700 

subtotal 35,800 

through BUR 

SJC-BUR 1,200 



TABLE 111 

Principal Airports Relationship to SMF (Sacramento) 
SMF and LAX 492,800 annual passengers 



SFO 


80,600 


eastern U.S. 


67,000 


central U.S. 


73,000 


BUR 


49 ,000 


So. West U.S. 


33,000 


PDX 


32,600 


Las Vegas (LAS) 


21 ,000 


Phoenix (PHX) 


14,000 



3ased upon this information the following is concluded: 

- that for a low level of service at Travis (say 2-5 million annual 
passengers), primarily to southern California and maybe Portland/ 
Seattle, the diversion from SMF to Travis for San Joaquin, Contra 
Costa, Solano and Napa and Sacramento counties would not seem to 
be large. 

- a higher level of traffic at Travis, however, would raise the question 
of limiting the kind of non-stop service that might be certificated to 
both Travis and SMF. From the-RASS access work, we know that to in- 
crease Travis above about 5% of the Bay Area total traffic, specific 
airline service would have to be assigned there. If that were done, it 
may impinge upon Sacramento's ability to obtain similar service, or, 

if SMF had already obtained the service, would impinge upon the 
ability of Travis t o obtain the service. 



III-103 



ISSUES 

1. The level to which joint-use of Travis could be negotiated with the 

Air Force is not known, beyond the current agreement with Solano County. 

2. Airspace does involve specific coordination with the Sacramento area. 

3. Ground access is a major question which does involve both Travis and 
SMF, particularly the question of future transit extensions between 
the Bay Area and Sacramento. 

4. Because Sacramento is the State capital, airline service that may 
predate Travis will probably not be removed from Sacramento. 



III-104 



A REVIEW OF AIRPORT OWNERSHIP* 



ISSUE PAPER 



INTRODUCTION 

To date, the development of airports serving the Bay Region has been 
performed by the individual cities of San Jose, San Francisco, and Oakland. 
Issues before the Committee with respect to restructured airline service 
points, new remote airports, and major additions to existing airports raise 
the question of the future form of ownership for airports serving the Region 

This paper is a brief summary of the principal forms of airport ownership 
and their advantages and disadvantages. 

AIRPORT OWNERSHIP 

In the early days of aviation, both general aviation and airline airports 
were often developed with private capital. Two of the three major airline 
airports in the Bay Region began as either privately owned or developed 
airports - Mills Field (now San Francisco International) and San Jose City 
Airport (now San Jose Municipal). California now has 34 airline airports, 
only one of which is in private ownership - Hollywood/Burbank Airport. Of 
the 352 airports in the state, 142 are privately owned and 210 are publicly 
owned. Of the total 34 airports open for public use in the nine-county 
Region, 17 are in public ownership. All of the airline airports in the 
Region are now publicly owned. 

Today the actual ownership and operational control of the publicly owned 
airports in California generally fall under one of the following forms: 

1. A separate department of city or county government: San 
Jose Municipal , Kern County Department of Airports. 

2. A division of a public works or transportation department: 
Buchanan Field, Santa Clara County, Fresno. 

3. Special airport districts (provided for in Section 22001- 
22908 of the State Public Utilities Code): Monterey Peninsula 
Airport, Truckee-Tahoe Airport, Santa Maria. 

4. Independent commissions, ports, or authorities: San Francisco 
Oakland, Los Angeles, San Diego. 



* Prepared for the Regional Airport Systems Study Committee May 12, 1972. 



III-105 



FINANCIAL RELATIONSHIPS 



The type of public ownership has a great deal to do with the financial 
self-sufficiency of the airport. Generally, the airports that are capable 
of revenue financing their own capital improvements and of meeting their 
operating costs are independent of direct city or county control. 

Others, that are dependent to some extent upon general tax funds, remain 
as departments or divisions of departments of local government. 

Where a broader tax base is required, the special airport districts can 
serve that purpose. 

The following is an insight into the extent of self-sufficiency: 

- small general aviation airports (less than 200 based aircraft) 
are usually dependent upon the local tax base for funds for 
capital, maintenance, and operating expenses. 

- large general aviation airports (greater than 200 based 
aircraft) and small airline airports (less than 500,000 annual 
passengers) will be able to generate revenues to support minor 
maintenance and all operating costs. For the larger airports 

in this group, some capital expenses may be covered by revenues 
if federal and state grants-in-aid are applicable. 

- medium to large airline airports (greater than 500,000 annual 
passengers) will have sufficient revenue to be self-sustaining. 
The larger airports will have revenue flows that will allow 
capital expenditures outside of grant-in-aid programs and allow 
flexibility in action. 

REASONS FOR INDEPENDENT AIRPORT AUTHORITIES* 

- the aviation service area is geographically different from 
any existing political boundaries. 

- there is a limitation on local government's ability to pay 
for or finance an airport. 

- the specialized skills needed to manage and administer an 
airport may be beyond the capability of local government. 

- independence from local governmental elective processes allows 
airports to affect long-term programs. 

- it is a solution to rivalries among conflicting governments. 



* Dygert, Paul K., Some Economic Aspects of Airport Boards, Authorities, and 
Districts . University of California, 1963. 



III-106 



The reasons stated above can begin as advantages during the early airport 
development and later become disadvantages. Among these disadvantages are 
the lack of responsiveness to the adjacent communities concerning adverse 
effects of the airport operations and the lack of governmental review 
of all the government's revenues sources in determining community expenditure 
priorities . 

ISSUES 

In the Regional Airport Systems Study, these issues may be important: 

1. A once-existing rivalry among present airports is reduced in the 
long-term by the expected abundance of future demand. 

2. Any major new regional airport such as Travis or Eastern Contra Costa 
County will need a broadly-based political, administrative, and financial 
source to implement it. Who and how would that be done? 

3. How will regional airport planning, now being provided by ABAG, be 
coordinated in the future with other transportation planning being done 
by MTC? 

4. Is there any need to governmental ly join the existing airports? 

5. Should a new regional airport be separate from the existing airports - 
governmental ly, financially? 

6. Many of the general aviation airports in the Bay Region have and will 
increasingly have an importance to the Region beyond the local owner's 
political jurisdiction. Should some way be devised to share respon- 
sibilities for capital improvements and the creation of new general 
aviation airports? 

7. If an ongoing process is required to insure the implementation of the 
Regional Airport Plan, who establishes the process and administers it? 

8. The Association, by its Resolution No. 1-71, has adopted a policy that 
opposes the creation of additional special purpose districts and 
authorities . 



III-107 




IV- Goal, Policies, and Decision Criteria 



CHAPTER IV 



GOAL, POLICIES, AND DECISION CRITERIA 



The Association of Bay Area Governments' Regional Plan 1970:90 , 
approved by the Association on July 30, 1970, was used as a reference 
in the Regional Airport Systems Study goal and policy work. In 
looking at the Regional Plan , the Committee found that: 

- Population levels of 4.8 million for 1970, 6.2 million 
for 1980, and 7.5 million for 1990 were projected. 

- The Regional Plan proposed a city-centered Bay Region. 

- The adopted planning goals are: 

1 . To protect and enhance San Francisco Bay and the major 
physical features and environmental qualities for the 
Region. 

2. To provide the opportunity for all persons in the Bay 
Area to obtain adequate shelter convenient to other 
activities and facilities, in neighborhoods that are 
satisfying to them. 

3. To designate ample land and facilities for the economic 
growth of the Region in order to provide opportunities 
for all citizens and communities to improve their 
economic well-being. 

4. To provide a transportation system that is integrated 
with land use and consistent with the city-centered 
concept of regional development. 

5. To provide a permanent regional open space system that 
makes possible the range of activities essential to the 
city-centered concept of regional development. 

6. To create a sense of regional identity, responsibility, 
and cooperation among citizens, organizations, and 
governments in the Bay Area. 

- The Regional Plan stated that for airports, "The designation 
and use of land for these purposes should directly support 
the objectives for a city-centered Region." 



IV-1 



- With respect to environmental quality, measures should 
be taken to: 

1. Halt the unnecessary use of limited natural resources. 

2. Restore and replenish them whenever and wherever 
possible. 

3. Provide improved environmental conditions. 

The Regional Plan was intended to be a general guideline for the Region. 
The specifics of its features have been left to its special plan elements. 
The Regional Airport Systems Study Committee looked at both the Regional 
Plan 's guidelines and the findings of other special plan elements - water 
and sewer and open space. It then developed three levels of detail to 
define the aviation plan element: 

First level: the general goal 

Second level: some more specific pol icies to reach the goal 

Third level: the very detailed decision criteria developed 
to allow the Committee to choose specific 
airport alternatives 

These levels are included in detail in this chapter. 

An issue that was raised during the review of the Regional Plan and 
several times during the public hearings was whether or not the growth 
to 7.5 million people in the Region by 1990 could be accommodated in 
a city-centered concept "reasonably well" and maintain "environmental 
quality." Concerned with this problem, the Committee asked ABAG's 
General Assembly in February 1972 to review its urban growth assumption 
in light of the 1970 census and some more recent specific environmental 
constraints. Until this re-evaluation can be made, the Committee 
adopted for its use in projecting passenger numbers the recent Depart- 
ment of Finance population forecast, made since the Regional Plan 
was written and lower than the Regional Plan assumes. 

In employing the policies and criteria, the Committee often found 
confl icts : 

- To avoid noise, high capital costs and air emission 
levels were encountered. 

- To increase capacity, Bay fill was required. 



IV-2 



- Increased access distance improved some environmental 
effects, but reduced probability of use by the public. 

By applying the criteria to the various alternatives and selecting 
among the alternatives, the Committee in effect established its 
priorities among those which conflicted. 



IV-3 



GOAL AND POLICIES 



The PRIMARY GOAL of this study is to determine a system of airports to 
serve the San Francisco Bay Region. 

To accomplish this goal, the Committee will consider three broad, long- 
range public needs among which priorities will have to be set: 
Aviation Transportation and Services, Economic Vitality, and Environmental 
Qual ity. 

Aviation Transportation and Services 

Under Aviation Transportation and Services, the Committee recommends 
these POLICIES for assessing each alternative: 

Airport and Airspace Potential 

1. Provide and allocate airport capacity and support facilities 
for a range of demand a) at a reasonable level for users 
with b) minimum airspace conflict and c) minimum delay. 

2. Encourage air safety. 

3. Set airspace and airport use priorities among users based 
upon public safety and benefit. 

4. Provide users with a choice of airports for destinations 
and available service. 

Access To, From, and Between Airports in the Region 

1. Provide the highest ground access service level, modal 
flexibility (auto, bus, air taxi, transit, STOL) and 
choice to the full range of airport users at a minimum 
cost. 

2. Match ground access capacity to airport use. 
Economic Vitality 

Under Economic Vitality, the Committee recommends these POLICIES for 
assessing each alternative: 

Impact 

1. a) Provide new investment opportunities where growth and 
employment are desired and feasible, 
b) Capitalize on existing investments, public and private, 
where further growth and employment are desired. 



IV-5 



2. Provide employment income to a wide range of Bay Area 
residents . 

Cost 

1. Minimize public and private capital investment for airport 
facilities to meet a demand level agreed upon. 

2. Make direct economic benefits exceed direct economic cost. 
Environmental Quality 

Under Environmental Quality, the Committee recommends these POLICIES 
for assessing each alternative: 

Noise 

1. Reduce aircraft noise over sensitive and populated areas. 

2. Reduce noise exposure by correcting incompatible uses. 

3. Reduce noise by establishing a long-range planning program. 

4. Prevent the creation of new incompatible land uses. 

5. Disallow waivers on noise compatibility for new airport sites. 
Air Quality 

1. Avoid establishing new airport and ancillary activities 
(including access) where they would contribute significantly 
to pollution of known high potential pollution areas. 

2. Avoid increasing aviation and ground access activity in 
areas where the total air pollution would be significantly 
increased. 

3. Reduce existing pollution by correcting incompatible uses. 

4. Encourage compatible uses. 
Water Quality 

1. Assure that any present, new, or expanded airport development 
meets State Water Quality Control Board standards. 



IV-6 



Surface Use 



1. Provide for maximum safety between aviation activity and 
other land and water uses. 

2. Minimize Bay fill . 

3. Assure compatibility of airport operations with public 
parks, recreation areas, wildlife sanctuaries, habitats of 
unique species, and aesthetic features where appreciable 
adverse effects are likely to be long-term or irreversible. 



IV-7 



AVIATION FORECAST DECISION CRITERIA 



Adopted May 5, 1972 



Passengers : The Regional Airport Systems Study Committee adopts the 
projection of 28 million total annual passengers for the 
year 1975, 44 million for 1980, and 72 million for 1985. 
This is based upon the most recent State Department of 
Finance projections of population for the Bay Area. The 
same per capita employment and per capita income values 
were applied as were used by the RASS contractor. 

Cargo : The RASSC adopts the cargo projection which results from 

modifying the contractor's projection downward to reflect 
the smaller population of the DOF forecast. The values 
for total cargo enplaned and deplaned in the Bay Area are 
then as follows:* 

Pounds (000) 1975 1980 1985 



RASS Modified Projection 1,454,000 3,163,000 6,690,000 
Original SARC Projection 2,006,109 4,619,500 9,371 ,437 



Mail : The SARC forecast for mail used growth rates developed by 

the RASS contractor in consultation with the U.S. Postal 
Service. The RASSC adopts this projection. 

Load Factor : The seat load factor used in planning for 1985 for the 
average day of the peak month is increased by the RASSC 
about 30% - from 47% to 60%. This will mean the following 
average number of passengers per flight operation: 

1975 1980 1985 

65-70 80-85 95-100 

(the lower figure in each case is for 
airports where 747 type aircraft are 
not in use) 



Includes connecting traffic. The RASSC takes note of the contractor's 
statement about the lack of detailed information regarding local cargo 
origin and destination and recognizes that the procedure for assigning 
the Bay Area total cargo forecast to county origin and destination is 
to be used with caution. 



IV-9 



It is recognized by the RASSC that a 60% load factor 
may cause some passenger inconvenience. 



The weight load factors used in the all -cargo aircraft 
remain unchanged, but the proportion of cargo carried 
on all -cargo flights in 1985 is revised downward from 
85% to 60% with the difference picked up by increased 
weight load factors on combination passenger/cargo 
flights.* 

General 

Aviation : Based on the revised population projections for the 

Region, general aviation projections for the Region are 
as follows: 

1975 1980 1985 

Ownership 5,680 7,590 9,860 

Annual Operations 4,600,000 6,700,000 9,200,000 



* The proportion of all -cargo flights could change from this projected 
figure if a major breakthrough in cargo transport occurs before 1985. 



IV- 10 



ACCESS DECISION CRITERIA 



Adopted May 5, 1972 



1. No airport alternative shall be chosen unless an acceptable 
passenger allocation process will provide for substantial utili- 
zation of the capacity of that alternative. 

2. If actions by regulatory agencies are necessary to provide for 
the utilization of an airport's capacity, then coordination 
between the Bay Area airport plan and that agency shall be 
undertaken. 

3. For airports with substantial passenger traffic, transit connec- 
tions to the airport will be included. 

4. Where future highway use restricts airport access, substantially 
increases airport ground travel times, or results in uncertainty 
for the air traveller, a much higher proportion of the passengers 
will choose BART than that suggested by the consultant. In such 
a case, direct transit connections must be capable of handling 
this additional traffic. 

5. In the selection of an airport alternative, airport access roads 
and parking and/or transit must be capable of handling the airport 
capacity. The availability and convenience of vehicular access is 
a major determinant of airport choice. 

6. Within the constraints of safety and public financial feasibility, 
the public shall take precedence over the convenience of airlines 
in determining the allocation of passengers among airports. 

7. Capital cost of that portion of highway and transit extensions 
which uniquely serve an airport shall be an allocated cost of 
that airport alternative. 

8. All portions of the Bay Area shall have access to a general 
aviation airport within at least 40 minutes ground travel time. 

9. Transportation capacity must be available to accommodate mail and 
air freight traffic for each airline airport. 

10. By 1985, 80% of the passengers in the 31 external market segments 
will have at least two service points in the Bay Region. 



IV-11 



AIRSPACE AND RUNWAY CAPACITY DECISION CRITERIA 
Adopted May 19, 1972 



1. The assignment of airspace priorities shall recognize today's 
operating levels at military airports. 

2. Where joint-use of military airports is being considered, the 
military mission capability must be preserved. 

3. Where airspace conflicts may occur, airports with region-wide 
significance will have precedence. 

4. Air traffic routings and procedures will take optimum advantage 
of aircraft noise reduction procedures. 

5. Procedures must be developed to prevent over-scheduling of the 
air traffic system during peak-hour periods. 

6. Airline, military, and general aviation flight training shall be 
diverted away from critical airports during periods of peak traffic. 

7. Airspace which is restricted for military purposes should be 
returned to civilian control when not in use. 

8. Full advantage shall be taken of new technology in area navigation, 
two-segment approaches, computer aided sequencing, and digital 
displays. 

9. The establishment of terminal control areas (TCA) will be the 
minimum necessary to assure safety and will provide for adequate 
VFR flight into and out of the Bay Area. 

10. All airport development plans shall be coordinated with the Federal 
Aviation Administration, ABAG, and any other appropriate regional 
agencies. 

11. The scheduling of flights and the utilization of airport and airspace 
control facilities shall reflect the higher utilization noted in the 
60% average seat factor guideline adopted by the RASSC. 



IV-12 



AVIATION NOISE DECISION CRITERIA 
Adopted May 5, 1972 



1. The Committee should use the land use interpretations shown on 

the following figure as the basis for determining airport/community 
relationship. Of these, the interpretations for residential 
relationships are comparable to the State of California's proposed 
noise regulations for the year 1985. 

2. Actions by the FAA, airlines, existing airports, and community 
planning commissions and governing bodies shall be directed toward 
avoiding any increase in incompatible land uses based upon current 
and projected airport activity. It should be recognized that in 
certain cases an individual increase may be in the total regional 
interest. 

3. For noise abatement purposes, the Bay should be used where airspace 
requirements permit. 

4. Flight operations from military airports with joint-use or military 
airports transferred to civilian ownership shall meet the planning 
criteria for civilian airports. 

5. The criteria used to govern civilian airport planning will be stated 
to the military with the clear expectation that parallel actions will 
take place. 

6. New airport site acquisitions shall include control of adjacent land 
uses to achieve the projected NEF noise exposure level criteria so 
that acceptable community relationships will be assured. 

7. In air traffic control routings of aircraft into and out of the Bay 
Area, consideration shall be given to minimizing the exposure of 
residential areas to overflight noise. 

8. The Association of Bay Area Governments by all actions available to it: 

a. clearly supports the FAA noise certification requirements for new 
aircraft and supports a corresponding FAA responsibility for pay- 
ment of damages resulting from aircraft noise litigation. 

b. opposes any waiver of these ;noise certification requirements for 
special classes of aircraft. 

c. requests that the FAA proceed with all possible speed with an 
engine/nacelle retrofit or replacement program to bring pre-noise 
certification aircraft into compliance to reduce aircraft noise 
at its source - the jet engine. 

d. makes it clear to the aviation industry that the capability of 
airport facilities within the Region to meet future demand will 

be constrained by the industry's ability to meet these noise criteria. 

e. supports the CARD report objective of a 10 PNdB reduction per decade. 



IV-13 



NOISE COMPATABILITY INTFRPRETATION 



GENERALIZED 
LAND USE 


NEF RANGE 


GENERAL LAND USE RECOMMENDATION 


Residential 
and 

Educat ional 


less than 
30 to 35 


30 


Satisfactory, with little noise impact and 
requiring no special noise insulation require- 
ments for new construction. 

New construction or development should be 
undertaken only after an analysis of noise 
reduction requirements is made and needed 
noise insulation features included in the 
design . 




greater than 
35 


New construction or development should not 
be undertaken. 


Commerc ial 


less than 
35 to 45 


35 


Satisfactory, with little noise impact and 
requiring no special noise insulation require- 
ments for new construction. 

New construction or development should be 
undertaken only after an analysis of noise 
reduction requirements is made and needed 
noise insulation features included in the 
design . 




greater than 
45 


New construction or development should not be 
undertaken unless related to airport activi- 
ties or services. Conventional construction 
will generally be inadequate and special 
noise insulation features should be included 
in construction. 


Industrial 


less than 
40 to 50 


40 


Satisfactory, with little noise impact and 
requiring no special noise insulation require- 
ments for new construction. 

New construction or development should be 
undertaken only after an analysis of noise 
reduction requirements is made and needed 
noise insulation features included in the 
design . 




greater than 
50 


New construction or development should not 
be undertaken unless related to airport 
activities or services. Conventional con- 
struction will generally be inadequate and 
special noise insulation features should be 
included in construction. 


Open 


less than 


40 


Satisfactory, with little noise impact and 

T'pnu i ri np^ nn qnpp n p l rim' 1 n^n 1 at i on rpnuirp- 

-L CVJ U1X J. J It; 1 1 U O U C L 1 Q J. 1 1 i- O C XllOUJ.uL'J.Ull i. ~ LJ L-i _L 1 

ments for new construction. 




greater than 
40 


Land uses involving concentrations of people 
(spectator sports and some recreational 
facilities) or of animals (livestock farming 
and animal breeding) should generally be 
avoided. 








• 



IV-14 



AIR QUALITY DECISION CRITERIA 
Adopted April 7, 1972 



1. No new major airport with airline jet operations shall be recommended 
for a geographic area which has a pollution potential rating of V, as 
described in the Bay Area Air Pollution Control District report to 
the Committee (see page I I 1-46). 

2. In the selection of airport alternatives, the Committee shall seek those 
alternatives which minimize air emissions from aviation sources, as well 
as those from vehicular traffic serving the airports. 

3. No new or existing airport shall, as a single emission source, irres- 
pective of other sources, cause state or federal air quality standards 
to be exceeded in residential areas downwind of the airport. 

4. In geographic areas having a BAAPCD pollution potential rating of IV 
or above, no existing or new airport shall contribute to that area any 
of the individual air contaminants to an extent greater than the 
proportion of aviation's contribution in the total Bay Area. 



IV-15 



ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE ACTIONS 



The following actions were formally adopted by the Study Committee, 
but not incorporated into decision criteria: 

V/STOL : The possibility of future V/STOL facilities and uses in the 
Bay Area should be acknowledged, but specific recommendations cannot 
be made at this time because of the uncertainties of its actual 
production and use. 

Corridor Transit : It is assumed that rapid transit along the California 
Corridor (San Francisco Bay Area to Los Angeles Area) will not be in 
use as a competitive mode of transportation before 1985. 

Southern Crossing : It is possible that the Southern Crossing will not 
be built by 1985. If it is not, this will have little effect on 
passengers' choice of airports. It would, however, necessitate 
additional access to Oakland Airport for East Bay residents. 

General Aviation : The general aviation allocations as shown in the 
April 26 paper to the Committee (see Appendix A) are adopted as part 
of the final aviation plan. 

Forum: The Committee will function after June 30, 1972 as a coordinating 
body for communication between the airports, airlines, communities, and 
regulatory agencies. This will allow the Committee to discuss further 
the composition of a continuing forum to serve this function, and will 
provide some experience in its working. 



IV-16 




V- Citizen Response and 
Public Information 



CHAPTER V 



CITIZEN RESPONSE AND PUBLIC INFORMATION 



A substantial portion of the Study was devoted to public input. In addition 
to open discussion and wide distribution of reports, response from the public 
has been received in over 600 pages of testimony from approximately 100 
speakers at 5 public hearings, and 950 letters and in 850 newspaper ques- 
tionnaires returned. 

The public hearings were located to be as accessible as possible to the 
population centers of the Bay Region and also to reflect some of the locations 
of the airport alternatives which the Committee was considering. Hearings 
were held at Fairfield, Oakland, San Jose, San Francisco, and San Rafael. 

Approximately 100 people testified: 20% represented environmental and citizen 
action groups, 20% represented chambers of commerce and community development 
associations , 20% were individuals, 20% represented city and county govern- 
ments, and the other 20% represented labor groups, the League of Women Voters, 
private and aviation-related companies, the State Department of Aeronautics 
and the Public Utilities Commission, the Federal Aviation Administration, the 
President's Aviation Advisory Commission, the U.S. Air Force, and the Canadian 
Consulate. 

While the letters received by the Committee were primarily in response to a 
newsletter article, there was also a wide variety of personal letters from 
many different citizens expressing their opinions. 

The original Aviation Future edition of the newspaper contained a general 
questionnaire that was useful to the Committee. 



V-l 



PUBLIC HEARINGS 



The purpose of these hearings was to receive from agencies and the public 
response to the technical material prepared to date, to allow additional 
information to be added to the record, and to receive an insight into 
opinions and concerns about present and future aviation development in 
the Region. 

The Regional Airport Systems Study Committee had originally scheduled three 
public hearings in the Bay Area- North, Central, and South Bay. In response 
to requests from San Francisco and Marin counties, two additional hearings 
were added. The following is a summary of these hearings: 

Fairfield - November 15, 1971 

Speakers included local city and county officials, and representatives from 
an airport, an airport land use commission, a public works department, an 
industrial development agency, Travis Air Force Base and the State Department 
of Aeronautics . Approximately eighty people attended. 

Most speakers favored development of northern Bay airports as part of a 
regional airport system because of land available and favorable location 
for handling growth. For Solano County, it was suggested that there would 
be a tolerance of airports because of the community's acceptance of Travis. 
A Travis/Meridian Airport was advocated, with civilian operations on a runway 
parallel to the existing runway and use of Travis' air traffic control tower. 
A representative of the Base Commander at Travis stated that although limited 
civilian use had begun, plans were that military use would not be phased out. 
Testimony also indicated opposition to any joint use that would interfere 
with the military mission. 

Other suggestions to the RASSC were to consider general aviation needs and air 
freight and to held an additional hearing at the recommendation stage of the 
study. No adverse environmental comments were received at this particular 
hearing. 

Oakland - December 13, 1971 

At this hearing, speakers included the Mayor of Oakland, a judge, and repre- 
sentatives from the California Public Utilities Commission, the President's 
Aviation Advisory Commission, California Department of Aeronautics, Port of 
Oakland, chambers of commerce/convention and tourism bureaus, citizens, 
industry groups, labor, League of Women Voters, conservation groups, an 
economic development agency, and a flower shipping co. (approx. 100 attendees) 

Many who testified advocated expansion of Oakland airport (and the corollary 
of using all airport to capacity), because such development would increase 
jobs, attract visitors , and improve service. 



V-2 



Others felt that demand should not automatically be met, that growth should 
be restrained because of detrimental Impact on environment, inflated population 
forecasts, and alternatives to growth, including increasing load factors, and 
improving ground transit and access. 

A member of the President's Aviation Advisory Commission suggested that the 
RASSC consider the long range needs of the aerospace transportation system, 
based on user demand, environmental impact, and economic impact on the non- 
flying public. 

The Chairman of the California Public Utilities Commission recommended that 
use of the existing airports to capacity be encouraged (particularly San Jose 
and Oakland) and services be dispersed near the origin/destination of pass- 
engers. The Civil Aeronautics Board should then consider the Study findings for 
allocating routes. He offered Commission interest and support in the evolution 
of the plan. 

Recommendations from those who testified included: keep military bases 
separate, explore the use of STOL, have flight operations over water to 
reduce noise, include general aviation in the study, look at a total trans- 
portation system, hold another hearing before the final recommendation, and 
provide for airport planning and implementation of study findings after the 
Study is completed. There was negative response to filling the Bay, and to 
three proposed sites - Richmond, Site E near Alviso, and Buchanan Field, Concord. 

San Jose - January 10, 1972 

Nearly three hundred people attended, with representatives giving testimony 
from Congressman Edwards, local mayors, city managers, councilmen, the Sierra 
Club 5 Save Our Valley Action Committee, chambers of commerce, League of Women 
Voters, a school district, airport committees, and industry, citizen, and 
conservation groups, Many individuals also spoke. 

The opinion reiterated almost unanimously was opposition to Site E (Alviso- 
Fremont area), because of noise and air quality hazards, encroachment on the 
proposed National Wildlife Refuge Area and growth implications. Many speakers 
supported no further expansion of San Jose airport, while others recommended such 
expansion. 

Several people again advised the Committee to integrate air travel with other 
modes of transportation; to revise population forecasts downward-, to coordinate 
with the Metropolitan Transportation Commission; to hold another hearing after 
the recommendation was made; to consider a regional airport away from urban 
areas, and to continue the study through an implementation phase. 

There was great concern expressed over some implications of air travel /airport 
development. It was felt that the needs of the air traveler should not take 
precedence over those of the rest of the population; that air travel demand was 
perhaps not as high a priority as other needs (e.g. housing); that there were 
serious medical effects due to noise and air pollution; and that citizens should 
exercise some control over the usage of airports. A question for the Committee 
to consider was who should control the number of flights - CAB, the airlines, 
the airports, or the passengers? 



V-3 



San Francisco 



February 3, 1972 



Speakers at this hearing represented the S.F. Airports Commission, Sierra Club, 
City of Alameda, League of Women Voters, S.F. Chamber of Commerce/Visitors and 
Convention Bureau, a community development corps, conservation groups, labor, 
Federal Aviation Administration, Air Transport Association, Bay Conservation 
and Development Commission, and San Francisco Planning and Urban Renewal 
Association. Approximately 200 people attended. 

Opinion seemed to be divided among those speakers who favored expansion of 
all area airports (because of increased imployment) to accommodate demand, 
and those who did not favor expansion, but instead higher load factors, fewer 
scheduled flights, revised forecasts, and dispersal of airports. 

Recommendations were made to consider joint use of Hamilton, general aviation 
needs, long tern regional airport planning, distant new airport locations, 
converting military bases to recreation areas, coordination with MTC, and 
airports located near the origin and destination of passengers. Again the 
point was made to consider the majority of the public who do not fly. 

Airport expansion involving Bay fill was opposed during testimony. The 
guideline stated by BCDC, the agency issuing permits for fill, is that if Bay 
fill is requested for airport expansion, the burden of proof is on the proponent. 

San Rafael - February 18, 1972 

Speakers were from San Benito, Marin, and Sonoma Counties, representing the 

Board of Supervisors of San Benito County, City of Hoi lister, Hoi lister Chamber 

of Commerce and Women's Club, City of Novato, Novato Planning Commission, 

Novato Neighborhood Planning Groups, two homeowners associations, Marin Alternative, 

and Sonoma County Airport. 

Testimony from the Hollister area stated opposition to a regional airport in 
their community, because of the expansion it would bring to their rural area, 
severe air pollution potential, and earthquake hazards. Alternatives suggested 
were dispersal of services to small airports, and use of rapid transit. 

Also considered was the joint civilian/military use of Hamilton Air Force Base. 
Most speakers opposed such use of Hamilton because it would seriously affect the 
noise and air pollution levels, property values, and rural nature of Marin County. 

The Study Committee was requested to hold other public hearings prior to final 
adoption of a plan. 

Many Marin citizens were concerned that impact of airports on their neighbor- 
hoods should be thoroughly evaluated before any recommendations were made. 
An example of the community viewpoint was expressed by the representative 
of Marin Alternative: "Thank you, gentlemen, for your ' professional views and 
studies. But in the final analysis it is we who want to determine the make up 
of our communities and our regions." * 



Vt4 



LETTERS TO THE REGIONAL AIRPORT SYSTEMS STUDY COMMITTEE 



Over nine hundred and fifty letters were received from individuals and 
organizations , commenting on the study. 

The most frequent comment (825) was to state opposition to airport expansion or 
development involving Bay fill. Many also opposed Bay fill for any purposes, 
pointing out the necessity for Bay preservation. Save San Francisco Bay 
Association sent notices to its membership requesting that opinions be sent 
in to RASSC; most of the 825 letters came as a result of that request. 

Response was also great to the preliminary alternative mentioning a new airport 
in the San Jose/Fremont/Al viso area (site E). Letters and petitions were received 
from 122 people who opposed an airport in this location. 

Others wrote with various comments, including: 

- favored a regional airport away from populated areas, particularly 
possible use of Travis AFB 

- favored a better use of existing airports through improved access, 
flight schedules: and load factors 

- favored civilian use of nearby military bases 

- suggested using alternate means of transportation 

- opposed any airport expansion/development 

- pointed out the small percentage of the population who are airplane 
passengers 

- commented that they would be willing to choose reduced service, for 
environmental reasons. 

Excerpts from several letters are reproduced here to demonstrate the range 
of interest. 



V-5 



EXCERPTS FROM LETTERS TO THE REGIONAL AIRPORT SYSTEMS STUDY COMMITTEE 



.We don't need a bigger airport! ,.,You would be killing off wildlife. I 
think you should take in consideration that the kids now will have to suffer 
with the airport later. • How would you like it if you had to hear jets fly 
over your house? Think of the kids to come. This world will be one big 
pollution dump! . . .Or listen to this! No more animals, think of that. 
If there are no more trees, then we couldn't breathe. All the person who 
is selling the land is interested in is money. Please for our sake, 
think intelligent! Don't you care?..," Terri Trettin, Fremont 

.The existing airports are presently not used to their capacity: although 
there are many flights, a large number of them run with only a small number 
of passengers. The flying public must be willing to subjugate their con- 
venience in choosing among many duplicated and half-filled flights to the 
more important public interest of preserving our environment from unnecessary 
development..." Richard Lee. Berkeley 

.1 am unqualifiedly and unalterably opposed to filling any of the Bay for 
airport expansion or any other reason. I fly considerably. However, I will 
forego flying and go back to trains or buses, or curtailment of trips, rather 
than fill another square foot of the Bay. America must not destroy itself 
in the name of progress..." Virgil Bozarth, Martinez 

.In considering alternative plans for the expansion of airport facilities 
my family urges NO PLAN THAT INVOLVES BAY FILL..." Anita' Pitcher, Burlingame 

.Being an air traveler of more than one million miles under my belt, I most 
heartily concur with any yes votes for expanding airport facilities in and 
around the Hamilton Field area..." Charles Guilder, San Francisco 

. I do not believe that any more of San Francisco Bay should be filled, least 
of all for airport sites. San Francisco Bay is unique. It is open space 
that remains ecologically for the well-being of all living creatures inclu- 
ding ourselves and the generations to come. It was not put here as an 
expendable piece of real estate for future commercially calculated gains..." 

Tel da Ralko, Richmond 

.We do not want jets taking off over Fremont..." 

Frank and Anna Broughton, Fremont 

.We are very much against the proposed San Jose-Alviso jetport, and do not 
want jets taking off over our homes and schools in Newark..." 

Mr. and Mrs. Gettman, Newark 

.We urge you to seriously consider all the adverse conditions that will 
result by expanding our present airports or building new airports in the Bay 
Area. More smog more noise and more people we do not need and you gentlemen 
surely must be aware of this by now..." Mr. and Mrs. Frank Yakushi, San Mateo 



V-6 



QUESTIONNAIRE RESULTS 



Aviatio n Future, a newspaper describing the Regional Airport Systems Study, 
was published in November 1971. During the winter of 1971, 30,000 copies 
were distributed to: 



Another edition of Aviation Future was published and distributed in June 
1972. 30,000 copies will again be distributed. This edition summarizes 
the recommended aviation plan. 

Eight hundred and fifty-one people answered and returned the questionnaire 
contained in the newspaper, and also reprinted by Save Our Valley Action 
Committee, Novato Planning Committee, the Fremont Argus , and the Novato 
Advance, 

A summary of the responses follows. 

It should be noted that the county of residence of the respondents did not 
provide a uniform sample of all communities in the Bay Area. A breakdown 
of the county of residence of respondents compared to population is: 



individual s 

conservation/ecology groups 

League of Women Voters 

chambers of commerce 

Bay Area airports (13 airports) 

ABAG mailing lists 

others 



43% 
9% 
9% 
8% 
13% 
10% 
8% 



# of 



County 



Population & of Total Responses % (by county) 
(U.S. Census) Bay Area to Ques- of Responses 

1 970 Population tionnaire to Questionnaire 



Alameda 1,073,000 

Contra Costa 558,000 

Marin 206,000 

Napa 79,000 

San Francisco 716,000 

San Mateo 556,000 

Santa Clara 1 ,065,000 

Solano 170,000 

Sonoma 205,000 



23 
12 
4 
2 

16 
12 
23 
4 
4 



213 
122 
90 

40 
39 
323 
8 
8 



25 
14 
11 


5 
5 
38 



1 



TOTAL 4,628,000 



851 



V-7 



UNUSABLE 



27 



11 

38 

U8 



73-home 
178-work 

15 



Ik 



Wanted: Your Opinion 

Your opinion can have influence even if you do not testify at the public hearings. 
Please help us reach the "best" recommendation for the Region by mailing us your 
completed questionnaire as soon as possible. Your written responses, in addition to 
answers to the following questions, are welcome. 

1. In your opinion, should the Bay Area provide additional facilities in the future 
for air travel into and out of the Region? 

305Yes 27 5 No 2kk I need to know more about the alternatives 

2. WlMe\ ative im^fxrfalice do yofr^allrgn to the following (please rank from 1, 
most important to 5, least important). 



Air travel availability and quality 
Easy access to and from airports 
Financial benefits of airports 
Financial costs of airports 
. Environmental effects of aviation 



(see below) 



Would you vote for an airport development: 
If the development were in your part of the Region? 

2U2 Yes 



No 



133 Undecided 

(16D 



4. 



28 9 Undecided 
would be ^reasonable" for 



If the development were in some other part of the Region? 

236 Yes 288 No 

As an airline passenger, how long a trip (in minutes) 
you to travel to or from the airport? 

tin 10 m%f T2o?T "tt?.-. 

If flight schedules were the same at these airports, which airport would you 
choose? 

from home from work 

(38^319 San Jose 250-429/0 
X_JL6 other 21 (? % ) 



from home from work 

( lf% ) 1U7 San Franciscol3£4l5% ) 
{35%) ?95 Oakland 273 (32#) 



(where) 



( where) 



6. If access time and cost were about the same for automobiles and rapid transit, 
which would you choose? 

1^3 automobile 652 rapid transit hi undecided 

(11%) t — (5*5 



7. 



lat city do you live? 
In what city do you work? 



(s ee below) 



How many airline flights have you taken out of the Bay Area in the last year? 

190 n 265 1-7. 16 5^ ,3-4 2 1 7 5 or more 

T22^) . t l3BV^K, ,h * 

Of the environmental issues listed below, now would you rank them in order of 

importance to you (from 1 most important to 6 least important)? 

(see below) 



. air quality 
. bay preservation 
noise 



plant life 
. population level 
. wild animal life 



10. Please return to: 



Regional Airport Systems Study, Association of Bay Area 
Governments, Hotel Claremont, Berkeley, California 94705 



QUESTION 2 



2. What relative importance do you assign 
most important to 5, least important). 

Air travel availability and quality 

Easy access to and from airports 

Financial benefits of airports 

Financial costs of airports 

Environmental effects of aviation 



to the following (please 



1 



191 

119 
22 
37 

U86 



"215 

2lU 

201 
97 



215 
168 
117 
113 



129" 

152. 
201 
2U6 
U8 



rank from 1, 
5 Unusable 



-759 

100 
333 
187 
lh 



52" 

51 
6h 
63 
33 



V-8 



QUESTION 5 - If flight schedules were the same at these airports, which 
airport would you choose? 



Airport Preference from Home Airport Preference from Work 

(# of responses) Airport (# of responses) 

295 Oakland 273 

147 San Francisco 130 

319 San Jose 250 

5 Marin County 5 

1 San Rafael 1 

2 Contra Costa 1 

1 Buchanan 1 

2 Solano County 2 
2 San Benito County 2 
1 Mendocino County 

1 Napa 1 

1 Palo Alto 1 

Fremont 1 

Livermore 2 

Walnut Creek 2 

Hamilton 2 

73 Unusable 178 



QUESTION 9 - Of the environmental issues listed below, how would you rank them 
in order of importance to you (from 1-most important to 6-1 east important)? 





1 


2 


3 


4 


5 


6 


7 


Unusable 


air quality 


' 41 3 


21 5 


96 


46 


34 


22 





25 


Bay preservation 


105 


172 


195 


187 


92 


68 


2 


30 


noise 


163 


182 


164 


97 


89 


136 





20 


plant life 


54 


49 


120 


194 


254 


148 





32 


population level 


230 


122 


132 


119 


81 


139 





28 


wild animal life 


56 


64 


85 


139 


219 


254 





34 


other 


1 


1 














1 






There are 157 additional comments , falling into the following catagories: 
airport development (46) 5 environment (43), access (22), other modes of trans- 
portation (10), questionnaire itself (8), RASS itself (6), improved airline 
service (5), personal relationship to aviation (7), and multiple comments (9). 

Comments and Comparisons 

1. Questions 1 and 8 - providing additional facilities and number of flights 
in the last year; Of the respondees who had flown one or more times out of 
the area, more favored additional facilities than did not. However, those 
who had not flown at all disapproved of additional facilities more often 
than they approved. 

2. Questions 3 and 8 - voting for nearby or distant airport development and 
number of flights, Most people responded that they did not favor either 
nearby or distant development, regardless of number of flights. 



V-9 



3. Questions 4 and 6 - reasonable travel time and preference between auto- 
mobile and rapid transit; the travel time chosen most often as reasonable 

by those who preferred either the automobile or rapid transit was 30 minutes. 

The travel times were ranked as follows; 

- automobile ... 30 minutes first, then 20, 40, 50, and 10 minutes 

- rapid transit ... 30 minutes first, then 40, 50, 20, and 10 minutes 

Question 4 and 8 - reasonable travel time and frequency of flight; 
Whatever the frequency of flight, the preferred travel time was 30 minutes. 

4. Questions 1 and 3 - provide additional facilities and nearby/distant airport 
development, Of the responses possible, more responded no to providing 
facilities and no to voting for devel opment-ei ther nearby or distant. 

Desire for facilities and willingness to vote for airport development are 
correlated-the most frequent response was no facilities/no development; 
the next most frequent response was yes facilities/yes development. 

5. Questions 1 and 7a - providing facilities and county of residence; Of 
responses from Alameda, San Mateo, Santa Clara, and Sonoma Counties, 
more responded no to additional facilities than responded yes. The 
reverse was true for Contra Costa, Marin, San Francisco, and Solano 
County respondees-more responded yes to additional facilities. 

6. Questions 5 and 8 - airport choices from home and work and number of 
flights, (0AK=0akland; SF0=San Francisco; SJC=San Jose) 

From home; 

Those who have flown 3-4, or more than 5 times/chose OAK, then SJC, then SF0 
Those who have flown or 1-2 times/chose SJC, then OAK, then SF0 

From work ; 

Those who have flown 0, 1-2, or 3-4 times/chose OAK, then SJC, then SF0 
Those who have flown more than 5 times/chose SJC, then OAK, then SF0 

7. Questions 5 and 7 - home and work airport choice, and county of residence 
and employment; Airport choices from home and work when compared with county 
of residence and employment were so similar that they followed this pattern 
with only minor discrepancies; 



County 



Airport Choice (listed in order of ranking ) 



Alameda 
Contra Costa 
Marin 



OAK, SJC, SF0 
OAK, SF0, SJC 
SF0, OAK 



• Napa 

San Francisco 
San Mateo 
Santa Clara 
Solano 
Sonoma 



no response to questionnaire 



SF0, OAK, SJC 

SF0, SJC, OAK 

SJC, SF0, OAK 

OAK, SF0 



OAK, SF0 



V-10 



8. Questions 6 and 8 - choice of automobile and rapid transit and 
frequency of flights; Of the people who chose rapid transit, greatest 
number of responses come from those who had flown 1-2 times in the past 
year, while of those who chose automobiles, the greatest number of res- 
ponses came from those who had flown more than 5 times. However, whatever 
the flight frequency; more people chose rapid transit than chose the auto- 
mobile 

9. Questions 7 and 8 - county of residence/employment and frequency of flight; 
The counties with a large sample - Alameda, Santa Clara, and Contra Costa- 
all followed this pattern of flight frequency; 1-2 flights/year most 
frequent, then more than 5, then 0, then 3-4 flights. (This applies to 
both county of residence and county of employment.) 

10. Comparing the home and work airport choices stated in question 5 with the 
consultant work on Access done by Wilbur Smith, Phase I, June, 1970 
( Airport Access) : 

The Access report shows that for 1975, assuming unconstrained conditions, 
air passengers would be allocated as follows: 



SFO 
OAK 
SJC 



33 % 
44 % 
23 % 



The results of this questionnaire show that, of those who responded 
(note that there is a low response rate from Napa, San Francisco, San 
Mateo, Solano, and Sonoma Counties), and with unrestrained conditions, 
their choice of airports in 1972 would be as follows: 



From Home 



From Work 



SFO 17% 
OAK 35% 
SJC 38% 



SFO 15% 
OAK 32% 
SJC 29% 



V-ll 



CHAPTER IV 



THE ALTERNATIVES 

An Evolutionary R ecomm endation 

The aviation alternative which seemed "best" in the Committee's judgment and 
which is central to the recommended plan is shown in stages below.* 

Recommended Stage Development in Millions of Annual 





Passengers for 


1975.. 


1980, 


1985 


Airport 


1975 


1980 


1985 


Runway Change 


SFO 


19 


23 


31 


none 


OAK 


6 


13 


24 


new runway 


SJC 


3 


6 


10 


extended runway 


TRA 





1 


6 


new runway 


HAM/ NAP 





1 


1 


extended runway at Napa only 


TOTAL 


28 


44 


72 





Evolution of this alternative occurred through nearly two and one half years 
of technical studies on likely aviation, economic, and environmental impacts 
and requirements under various assumptions , five public hearings, input from 
many government official s s and many revisions of the preliminary alternatives. 
The intent throughout was to choose the "best" alternative from a wide range 
of choices developed through an open process. 

The facilities required to satisfy the allocated demand for passengers was the 
best estimate that could be forecasted at the time this study was prepared. 
Future operational or airport design requirements may be imposed by the federal 
government; or environmental constraints more severe than those used in the 
Study may be imposed by local communities. If this occurs, there could be 
significant reductions in the capacity of some airports below those shown in 
this plan. In such cases, the Plan should be reviewed to ascertain if improve- 
ments beyond the recommendations made in the Plan, are necessary. 

Preliminary Al ternatives 



The preliminary alternatives focused the work and stimulated suggestions for 
improvements. Eleven preliminary alternative combinations of airports and 
capacities evolved from Committee and staff work late in 1970. These guided 
the Committee's work for about a year under accompanying assumptions of fore- 
cast demand, aircraft type, annual operations, passenger load and delay factors, 
and runway capacity. 



* The recommendation also includes criteria adopted by the Committee on fore- 
casts, air quality, noise, access, and capacity. The recommendations for SFO, 
0AK ; . and SJC are conditional on certain criteria. For . instance, to comply with 
State noise standards at high traffic volumes, there would need to be retrofit 
or retirement of certain engine types. Seat occupancy factors would also need 
to rise from present levels. Failure to meet certain criteria at close-in air- 
ports might result in a shift of more service to Travis than allocated. This 
in turn would depend on what happens to Sacramento Airport if traffic at Travis 
reaches high levels. 



VI-1 



The passenger demand forecast is especially important and difficult. 
The forecasted 1985 demand of 83.5 million annual passengers initially 
assumed would have been met by any of the eleven preliminary alternatives 
except the last. The last assumed full capacity on existing runway 
configurations at OAK, SJC, and SFO and fell short of forecasted demand 
by some 29.5 million passengers. 

After the eleven preliminaries, several alternatives were suggested: 



- A regional mid-Bay airport with BART connections to replace 
SFO and OAK with two sets of parallel 12,000 foot runways 
over 2,000 acres of fill. It is intended to relieve noise 
impact, retain accessibil i ty, and replace separate SFO and 
OAK fills. SFO and OAK would be used for parking and 
terminal functions. 

- A regional airport in eastern Contra Costa County. 

- Marin with more open options; 

a) A major airport parallel to Lakeview Road where it 
intersects Highway 37 east of the Petal uma River 

b) Shifting Hamilton AFB as a reliever airport at 2.7 
million passenger capacity to a major facility, with 
SJC at 16.5 million passengers. 



Revised Alternatives 

Following the public response, the Committee removed these airports from 
active consideration: 



Based upon the Committee's discussions and actions, revisions #1 and #2 
were prepared by staff. Committee actions on these revisions further 
adjusted the alternatives as follows: 



- Removed any SFO alternatives above the present design 
capacity of approximately 30 million annual passengers 

- Added a widely spaced (5,000 feet) parallel runway 11-29 at OAK 

- Restricted SJC to about 117,000 airline operations (about 8 
million annual passengers), based on environmental constraints 



Hoi 1 ister 
Site E 
North Bay 
Mid -Bay 



Richmond 

Concord (for jet airline operations) 
Livermore (for jet airline operations) 
Lakeview Road 



VI-2 



- Introduced a California Corridor service point in the North 
Bay Area, 

- Introduced the possibility of some parallel operation of 
SJC and NAS Moffet Field (with joint civilian use of Moffet) 

- Removed Napa from any consideration as a regional airport and 
limited it in size to 1-2 million annual passengers 

At this time, decision criteria being adopted by the Committee contained 
changes in assumptions being used. Two extremely important changes were 
the decreased passenger demand forecast and the increased aircraft seat 
occupancy factor. These lowered the number of aircraft operations and 
considerably eased the pressure to recommend major and costly new facilities 
with large impacts on surrounding areas. They also made it easier to plan 
a staged redistribution of passenger and airport growth from the present 
level to 1985. 

The Selection 

What form the original alternatives would finally take became increasingly 
clear toward the end of the study. The process was one of elimination 
and readjustment as assumptions hardened and constraints converged. 

SFO management estimated the practical limit of SFO around 31 million 
passengers annually. SJC management in the midst of high population 
expectations for the South Bay put a lid on its airport at around ten 
million passengers for environmental reasons. Much of the demand generated 
in that area then would have to go to SFO and OAK. Travis presented the 
problems of the remote site. Most people would not choose to travel to 
it unless unique service were placed there. Capital costs for access and 
terminal facilities for a major airport at this site would be large. 
A Sacramento official also expressed concern over cutting into Sacramento 
Airport's potential market with a high level of activity at Travis. 

Attention then focused on Oakland to satisfy a major share of the 72 
million passengers the Committee anticipated in its adopted demand forecast. 
OAK's accessibility and over-water noise abatement advantages were considered 
along with its Bay fill drawback. 

Napa or Hamilton was slotted to meet the local need of the northern counties 
for California Corridor service rather than to serve as a major regional 
airport. Capacity in this role would be for about one million passengers 
annually at either one or the other, but not both. Local sponsorship 
or veto would be controlling in the selection. 

Failure of OAK or SFO to meet certain criteria also included in the 
recommendation would either force more service to Travis than allocated 
or would result in a failure to meet projected demand or a search for 
another site. 



VI-3 




AIRPORT ALTERNATIVES 

PROPOSED 

^ EXISTING 

STS SONOMA COUNTY 

LKV LAKEVIEW ROAD 

NAP NAPA COUNTY 

TRA TRAVIS AFB 

HAM HAMILTON AFB 

RIC RICHMOND (PT. ISABEL) 

CON CONCORD (BUCHANAN FIELD) 

BNW BYRON/BRENTWOOD 

OAK OAKLAND 

SFO SAN FRANCISCO 

SJC SAN JOSE 

MDB MID-BAY 

LIV LIVERMORE 

E SITE "E" (ALVISO) 

HOL HOLLISTER 

ALA ALAMEDA NAS 

MOF MOFFETT FIELD NAS 




VI-5 



Preliminary Airport Alternatives 
for a 1985 Demand of 83.5 Million Annual Passengers 



ALTERNATIVES 
(Increase in 
capacity shown 
by asterisks*) 

1. OAKGRO 
(SFO-OAK*-SJC) 

Total 



AIRPORT 



San Francisco Internat'l, 
Oakland International 
San Jose Municipal 



ANNUAL AIRLINE 
PASSENGERS 
ENPLANED AND 
DEPLANED (OOP) 

32,650 
3*1,311* 
16,500 
oltS&T 



ANNUAL 
COMMERCIAL 

AIRCRAFT 
OPERATIONS 

424,000 
446,000 

259,000 
1,129,000 



Growth in airport capacity only at OAK ( OAKGRO ) 



2. ALGROE San Francisco Internat'l. 37,884 492,000 

(SFO*-OAK*-SJE*) Oakland International 24,100 313,000 



Total 



San Jose Site "E" (New) 21,U80 279,000 

83,464 1,084,000 



Growth in capacity allocated among named airports including Site E in 
San Jose. (ALGROE) 



3. HOLRLV 


San Francisco Internat'l. 


32,650 


424,000 


(SF0-0AK-H0L*- 


Oakland International 


13,780 


179,000 


HAM»-CON*-LIV*) 


Hollister (New Airport) 


30,774 


400,000 




Hamilton Air Force Base 


2,678 


41, 800 




Buchanan Field 


2,392 


37,400 




Livermore Airport 


1,190 


18,600 
1,100,800 


Total 




83,464 



Establishes a major airport at Hollister with reliever airports at Hamilton, 
Buchanan, and Livermore sites. Much of growth impact associated with 
Hollister is out of the region. ( HOLRLV ) 



4. TRAVIS 

(SF0-0AK-SJC- 

TRAV*) 

Total 



San Francisco Internat'l. 
Oakland International 
San Jose Municipal 
Travis Air Force Base 



32,650 
13,780 
7,500 
?9,534 



424,000 
179,000 
117,000 
384,000 
1,104,000 



The presently established system with all growth allocated to TRAVIS. 
(TRAVIS) 



VI-7 



Regional Airport Systems Study /Preliminary Airport Alternatives 



ALTERNATIVES 




ANNUAL AIRLINE 


ANNUAL 


(increase in 




PASSENGERS 


COMMERCIAL 


capacity shown 




ENPLANED AND 


AIRCRAFT 


by asterisks*) 


AIRPORT 


DEPLANED (000) 


OPERATIONS 


5 . SFGKNO 


San Francisco Internat'l. 


37,881+ 


492,000 


(SFO*-OAK*-SJC- 


Oakland International 


22,007 


286,000 


SAR*-RTCH* ) 


San Jose Municipal 


16,500 


259,000 




Sonoma County Airport 


2,678 


41,800 




Richmond (New Airport) 




68,600 


Total 




83,464 


1,147,400 


Growth allocated 1 


to SFO and OAK with a northern tilt to expanded service 


at Santa Rosa and 


a new airport at Richmond. 


(SF0KN0) 




6 . SJEMAX 


San Francisco Internat'l. 


32,650 


424,000 


( SFO-OAK-SJE* ) 


Oakland International 


17,000 


221,000 




San Jose Site "E" (new) 


33,8l4 


440,000 


Total 




83,464 


1,085,000 


All growth allocated to Site E in San Jose. 


(SJEMAX) 




7 . S JEMX2 


San Francisco Internat'l. 


32,650 


424,000 


( SFO-OAK-SJE* ) 


Oakland International 


8,814 


115,000 




San Jose Site "E u (New) 


42,000 


546,000 


Total 




83,464 


1,085,000 


All growth in capacity provided at Site E at 


San Jose, with OAK operating 


at less than present runway capacity. (SJEMX2) 




8 . HOLNAP 


San Francisco Internat'l. 


32,650 


424,000 


(S.0 GAK-SJE- 


Oakland International 


13,780 


179,000 


NAP*-HOL*) 


San Jose Municipal 


7,500 


117,000 




Napa County Airport 


2,689 


43,000 




Hollister (New Airport) 


26,845 


349,000 


Total 




83,464 


1,112,000 


Present system with Napa County Airport operating as a reliever airport 


and a new airport 


at Hollister. (HOLNAP) 






9. OAKMAX 


San Francisco Internat'l. 


32,650 


424,000 


(SFO-OAK*-SJC) 


Oakland International 


43,314 


563,000 




San Jose Municipal 


■ 7,500 


117,000 


Total 




83,464 


1,104,000 


Growth in airport 


capacity only at OAK. 


(OAKMAX) 





VI-8 



Regional Airport Systems Study /Preliminary Airport Alternatives 



ALTERNATIVES 
(increase in 
capacity shown 
by asterisks*) 

10. NAPOAK 

(SF0-0AK*-SJC- 

NAP*; 

Total 



AIRPORT 



San Francisco Internat'l 
Oakland International 
San Jose Municipal 
Napa County Airport 



ANNUAL AIRLINE 
PASSENGERS 
ENPLANED AND 
DEPLANED (OOP) 

32,650 
2U,100 
16,500 
10,2lU 



83,1*61* 



ANNUAL 
COMMERCIAL 

AIRCRAFT 
OPER ATIONS. 

1*2U,000 
313,000 
259,000 
133,000 
1,129,000 



Growth at OAK and a greatly expanded facility at Napa, making it a full- 
service regional airport. (NAPOAK) 



11. PREFAC San Francisco Internat'l 32,650 1*2^,000 

(SFO-OAK-SJC) Oakland International 13,?80 179,000 

San Jose Municipal 7 , 500 117,000 

Total 53,930 720,000 

No growth of existing capacity of the three named airports; only 65% of the 
total forecasted passengers for 1985 can be accomodated under this system. 
(PREFAC) 



VI-9 



ALTERNATIVES* 



ASSUMPTIONS/ ISSUES PAPER 



INTRODUCTION 

The turning point of the airport study is the complicated and controversial 
process of recommending what is the "best" aviation alternative in the 
context of a wide range of regional concerns. Here, the Committee considers 
the aviation, economic, and environmental needs of the Region, together 
with public response, technical findings and its own developing sense of the 
regional public interest. Afterward, the Committee's chosen alternative 
can be translated and adopted in the Association's Regional Plan and grant 
review procedures . 

As the issues evolve, the Committee will develop decision criteria and 
agree on a range of alternatives. Both the criteria and the alternatives 
are open to improvement until a final choice is made. 

Early in the process, some alternatives may be dropped or changed where 
their penalties appear unacceptable. New alternatives may enter for 
evaluation. Final contenders can be closely examined to see where one 
surpasses the others, for whom, and to what extent. Attention can then 
focus on those criteria which prove controlling for combinations of airports 
and capacities which work best for the Region, in the Committee's judgment. 

APPROACH - EVOLUTION OF PRELIMINARY ALTERNATIVES 

Seeing what the full range of choices is or what it might be is difficult - 
nearly as difficult as deciding what criteria they will be judged by. To 
widen its choices, the Committee did not limit its range to extremes such as 
"If we had it to do all over again, where would airports be sited and traffic 
allocated?" or "Keeping only what we have, how can we make the best of it?" 
Instead, the Committee took eleven combinations of airports from twelve 
airport sites, realizing that all the possible combinations of airports would 
result in more alternatives than it could reasonably evaluate. So far there 
are only six airports that vary in capacity within these combinations to 
yield the eleven alternatives - four existing and two new airports. The 
Committee assumed a 1985 annual demand forecast of 83.5 million in all cases 
except one. Variations in 1985 annual passenger capacity among the existing 
major airports appear in the following chart. 



* Prepared for the Regional Airport Systems Study Committee February 25, 1972 



VI-10 



1985 PASSENGER CAPACITY RANGE FOR EXISTING MAJOR AIRPORTS 



(in millions) 



SAN FRANCISCO 



OAKLAND 



SAN JOSE 



Lowest 
Highest 



32.7 
37.8 



8.8 
43.3 





42.0 



TOTAL PRESENT INVESTMENT 



(in millions of dollars) 



Public 

Private 

Total 



251 .4 
842.1 
1 ,093.5 



45.5 
1.5 
47.0 



3.9 
1.1 



5.0 



San Francisco Airport is never less than 32.7 million* and Hollister is 
substituted for San Jose Municipal Airport in Alternative Three. 

The methodologies used for analyzing the preliminary eleven alternatives 
in various dimensions can generally be applied to additional alternatives. 
This will be done for the additional sites suggested during the hearings. 
If the Committee desires greater detail, some additional contract work 
may be necessary. 

The content of the preliminary alternatives reflects both existing proposals 
for various airports as well as specific requests. For example, Travis Air 
Force Base as a joint civil -mil itary airport appeared in ABAG's Prel iminary 
Regional Plan ; Hollister, an alternative to San Jose Municipal, came from 
comments of a San Jose organization, Save Our Valley Action Committee; 
Hamilton Air Force Base appeared at the request of Marin County; and Richmond 
appeared in response to a request for STOL. In formulating airport com- 
binations, the following were used: passenger load factors, runway capacity, 
aircraft type, annual operations, and delay factor. 

Alternative #11 takes existing runway configurations at Oakland, San Jose, 
and San Francisco up to capacity under assumed load, aircraft mix, and 
delay factors. Uniquely, it is short (by 35%) of meeting the forecast 1985 
passenger demand. 

The other ten alternatives assume that the 83.5 million passengers forecast 
for 1985 will be accommodated. For some airports within an alternative, 
present runway configurations are taken as given. Passenger volume is then 
derived assuming an annual aircraft operations capacity for the runway 
system and an average passenger load factor for the aircraft type assumed. 



* The reason for this is that the construction program currently underway 
and scheduled for completion in 1976 will provide that capacity. 



VI-11 



In other instances the number of passengers is given and operations are 
calculated. When the capacities for several airports are found within an 
alternative, the remaining balance is subtracted from 83.5 million passen- 
gers and allocated to a remaining airport. The number of aircraft oper- 
ations to meet this residual demand is then calculated at an assumed load 
factor. A runway system is set to match this number of operations. In 
the case of the reliever airports, the market served was assumed to be the 
California Corridor between Los Angeles and the San Francisco Bay Area. 

ISSUES 

For each alternative, assumptions interlock on annual passenger demand, 
load factors, and annual aircraft operations for 1985. These are basic 
to forming the alternatives. 

1. Ten alternatives assume an annual passenger demand of 83.5 million for 
1985. Is this reasonable? What population, employment, and income 
levels will hold in 1985? How sensitive is demand to each of these 
levels? What effect would changes in fares and preferences to fly have? 
How many passengers should be anticipated ? 

Assumed are average aircraft load factors for 1985. They average 55%. 
This average and the passenger demand translate into the number of annual 
operations for assumed aircraft types. Are operations based on a 55% 
load factor reasonable to accommodate when they compete with other public 
concerns for scarce public resources and result in some negative impacts? 
What is a reasonable balance between load factors and flight schedules? 
How many aircraft operations should be anticipated? Is the present system 
adequate for this and for how long? 

2. Ten preliminary alternatives are based on a demand of 83.5 million and one 
is based on existing capacity of 54 million without expansion. Should 
there be some range of choice inbetween these? Can the "best" choice 
come from the range of allocations in the preliminary alternatives? 
Could improved load factors and distribution of flights increase the 
capability of existing airports above 54 million passengers? 

3. Can the preliminary alternatives be adjusted to include a better range 
of choices of airport sites or are the listed ones good enough? If the 
best choice can't be made from the preliminaries, what should be done? 

4. Several alternatives were suggested after the 11 preliminaries came out. 
How should these be accommodated? 

- A regional mid-Bay airport with BART connections should replace 
SFO and OAK. This new airport would have two sets of parallel 
12,000 foot runways over 2,000 acres of fill. It is intended 
to relieve noise impact, retain accessibility and replace 
separate SFO and OAK fills. SFO and OAK would be used for 
parking and terminal functions. 



VI-12 



- A regional airport in eastern Contra Costa County. 

- Marin with more open options: 

a) A major airport parallel to Lakeview Road where it inter- 
sects Highway 37 east of the Petal uma River 

b) Shifting Hamilton as a reliever airport at 2.7 million 
passenger capacity to a specified non-Hollister alterna- 
tive, where SJC is at 16.5 million 

5. Assuming a high degree of unknowns, uncertainties, and contingencies , 
how can an alternative be made that is firm enough to be a guide but 
flexible enough to stand the test of time and contingencies? Can 
decision criteria be drafted to trigger on certain indicators of change 
for staged growth (such as reaching a pre-set load factor in a pre-set 
percentage of the total market over a given time period)? 

6. What is the potential role of each airport in the regional scheme? 
What is the potential role of each military airport should it become 
surplus or otherwise available for civil use? 

7. How will preliminary or subsequently investigated alternatives compare 
from a regional standpoint over criteria developed from these aspects: 

- airspace 

- airport capacity 

- demand 

- access 

- noise 

- air pollution 

- Bay fill 

- other environmental aspects and land use 

- capital cost 

- economic benefit 

8. Are there any penalties which would eliminate an alternative from the 
outset (i.e., some capital cost or noise or fill criteria)? 

9. From a regional standpoint, if the degree of difference among the alter - 
natives in a particular dimension is slight, should that dimension be 
dropped? For example, there is a 2% difference in regional household 
income at stake in the choice of preliminary alternatives according to 
the economic study. Is this then a significant enough area in which to 
compare the alternatives? 

10. Which dimensions take priority over which others in case of conflict ? 
Criteria can be interrelated so that some take precedence over others 
in case of conflict. 



VI-13 



1 1 . What does the choice of alternatives assume for or require of airlines, 



airport o 


perators, regulatory agencies, communities affected, and the 


flying pu 


olic? Does this affect the viability of your first, second, 



or third choice? 

Any alternative creating remote capacity requires regulatory agency 
support or else another National -Dul les situation will result- 

No alternative creating additional capacity at a given airport can 
survive the veto of its owner. For example, creating a capacity of 16.5 
million annual passengers at San Jose while the San Jose City Council has 
other ideas affects the other airports in the system. On the other hand, 
a local airport owner may want to expand beyond the capacity provided 
in the alternative chosen. To the extent this would not conflict with 
the priorities and provisions of the alternative chosen, this should not 
affect a regional airport plan. How much latitude should there be? 

How much could San Francisco Airport be expected to sacrifice for the 
Region if the public interest of the two were found to differ? SFO is 
already committed to substantial revenue bond financing based on a very 
high level of traffic, and ultimately backed by the San Francisco tax- 
payer. What could be done about it in the way of a viable alternative 
if San Francisco's interests differed from the regional interest? 

12. If coordinated interactions among airports, communities, federal agencies 
and the airlines are found to be essential to the plan, how are these 
interactions assured? 



***** 

The Regional Airport development pattern - dispersed or concentrated, 
expanded existing airports or newly created ones - should be the outcome 
of balancing public needs as specified in the decision criteria to come. 



VI-14 



AN ANALYSIS OF ADDITIONAL AIRPORT SITES* 



INTRODUCTION 

Three different possible sites for major regional airports were suggested 
at the public hearings: 

- North Bay, near Lakeville Road in southern Sonoma County 

- Mid-Bay, north of the San Mateo Bridge 

- Eastern Contra Costa County, in the Byron/Brentwood area 

In addition, during the San Jose hearing, mention was made of utilizing 

the San Joaquin Valley as a possible site. Staff comment or this suggestion 

has been withheld pending direction from the Committee. 

The purpose of this paper is to make a preliminary comment about these sites 
from the information we have at hand. Based upon this, the Committee may be 
able to reject sites from further consideration or identify those that you 
desire additional information about. 

Following are summaries listing the available information and an interpre- 
tation of how it would affect each of these sites. It has been assumed that 
these sites would each have to accommodate 20 million passengers annually. 

SOUTHERN SONOMA COUNTY 

Access - Using the Napa example, this site could have: 

- low average trip distance for passengers using it and the other 
existing airports, probably about 25 miles for an average trip. 

- main access from Marin and Sonoma Counties would be via U.S. 101, 
and for Napa, Solano, and parts of Contra Costa Counties, I 80, 

I 680, and State Route 37. All of these routes are now or soon 
will be freeway. 

- there is a BART possibility via Richmond-Val lejo. 

- passenger allocation would place about 10 million passengers here 
without special placement of air service. 

Airspace - A large airport at this site would require an airspace reservation 
of about 12x24 miles. Such an area would affect the positive 
controlled air traffic at Napa and Hamilton AFB and at least 
require full coordination of traffic. 

- the VFR general aviation airports at Petal uma, Schellville, and 
Sonoma Valley could be affected. 



* Prepared for the Regional Airport Systems Study Committee March 20, 1972 



VI-15 



- the planned ILS approach for Napa would cross the new site 
approach and the new departure might involve the Sonoma County 
programmed ILS approach path. 

Capital Cost - Using the Hollister I example (without transit), the cost 
would be about $500,000,000 for a new airport. 

Economic Impact - Using Alternative 10 which involved SF0, OAK, SJC, and 
Napa, it appears that this site could offer a high economic 
advantage for the Bay Area as a whole, and to Marin, Sonoma, 
and Napa Counties in particular. 

Environmental Impact - Because of its remote location and the existing rural 
land uses, noise would not be a problem today. However, existing 
zoning would allow residences in this area. 

- the air quality report would identify this as being an area 
between zones III and IV; that is, between a moderate and heavy 
air pollution potential. 

- this site would be inland and would not involve the Bay or its 
shore! ine . 

- the Wilsey and Ham report identifies this area as part of a 
proposed natural preservation area. 

- a portion of the site is identified in the ABAG Regional Plan 

as open space with controlled development, and the other portion 
as permanent open space. 



MID-BAY 

(assumes the use of existing SF0 and OAK as passenger processing areas) 
Access 

- based on the SF0, OAK, and SJC alternative, this site would 
have high accessibility to passengers. 

- a major highway connection, probably from the Hayward/San Mateo 
Bridge, would have to be provided. 

- BART connections from the existing SF0/0AK airports would need 
to cross navigable waterways. 

Airspace 

- this location would have a profound affect upon the air traffic 
of all of the existing airports in the central Bay Area. The 
overall effect might be to nearly substitute the capacity at SF0 
and OAK for that of the new mid-Bay site. 

- NAS Alameda would probably operate on a one-for-one basis with 
the traffic at this site, as would NAS Moffett Field. 

- SJC, with coordination, might be able to operate unrestricted. 



VI-16" 



Capital Cost 



- the acreage of Bay fill for a four runway airport with no 
terminal area is 2,000 acres, and with terminal area, 4,000 
acres. This would provide for 40 million annual passengers 
and would replace SF0 and OAK runways. These areas include 
dikes and access routes. Assuming the Bay land in public 
ownership, and using the unit cost at OAK, the cost for fill 
alone would be on the order of: 

2,000 acres = $58 million ($29 ,000/acre) 
4,000 acres =$116 million 

- to these costs would be added the airfield development cost, 
terminal costs, and a sizeable cost of obtaining access. 

Economic Impact 

- would be one of the highest for the Bay with respect to jobs, 
housing, employment 

- primary benefiting counties would be Alameda, Santa Clara, and 
San Mateo 

Environmental Impact 

- would not affect existing shoreline 

- would be the largest Bay fill alternative of any in the study 

- would have a large effect in reducing water surface area 

- deeper water portions of the Bay are apparently less of an 
environmental concern than shallower portions. 

- a change in the tidal prism in the south central Bay would occur. 

- least noise impact of the central Bay airport sites 

- would be at the northern edge of the proposed South Bay Wildlife 
Refuge. Approaches would be between 2,500' and 5,000' feet 
over the refuge. 

- would probably be identified as a zone III for air quality 
considerations (moderate air pollution potential). Downwind, 
the San Jose area is between zone IV and V (heavy to severe 
air pollution potential). 

- neither the Regional Plan nor the Wilsey and Ham report shows 
significant environmental issues other than Bay fill. 



EASTERN CONTRA COSTA COUNTY 

Access 

- this site is somewhat similar to Travis AFB in the alternative 
which has SF0, OAK, SJC, and Travis. This would then suggest 
an average trip distance of 39 miles. 



VI-17 



- about 40% of the schedules would have to be uniquely placed 
at this site to assure its use. Those having to use it would 
have an average trip distance of about 70 miles one way. 

- highway access would be via I 680, I 80, State Route 4, and 
U.S. 50. These are or will be freeways. 

- the nearest first stage BART stations will be at Fremont and 
Concord with possible future extensions to Antioch and Liver- 
more. No major BART water crossings would be required. 

Airspace 

- would be well clear of any Bay Area air traffic, including 
Stockton. 

- would require air traffic coordination with enroute east- 
bound air traffic. 



Capital Cost 



- Using Hoi lister as a guide (without transit), cost would be 
about $430,000,000. 



Economic Impact 



- centered in Contra Costa and San Joaquin Counties 

- removal of valuable agricultural lands 



Environmental Impact 

- generally rural in character with some small urbanization in 
the communities of Byron and Brentwood - noise impact moderate. 

- air quality has no apparent problems 

- no Bay fill required 

- the Regional Plan has a mix of controlled development and 
permanent open space plus some residential 

- Wilsey and Ham identifies a high environmental sensitivity 
with some proposed natural preservation areas. 



VT-18 



POTENTIAL FOR CALIFORNIA CORRIDOR AIRLINE SERVICE TO THE NORTH BAY COUNTIES* 



The 1968 and projected airline passenger demand in the northern county area 
is : 





1968 Local Passengers 


1975 1 


.ocal 


Passengers 


1985 Local Passengers 




(000) 




(000) 




(000) 




% of Corridor 




% of 


Corridor 


% of Corridor 




Bay passen- 




Bay 


passengers 


Bay passen- 


County 


Total Total gers(37%) 


Total 


Total 


(35.1%) 


Total Total gers(35%) 


Marin 


341 2.6 126 


1 ,270 


4.8 


450 


4,620 7.5 1 ,620 


Napa 


52 0.4 19 


320 


1.2 


110 


1 ,090 1.8 380 


Solano 


133 1.0 49 


480 


1.8 


170 


1 ,980 3.2 540 


Sonoma 


185 1.4 69 


640 


2.4 


230 


2,420 3.9 850 


TOTAL 


711 5.4 263 


2,710 


10.2 


960 


10,110 16.4 3,390 


The existing large airports in this 


area 


are: 






Hamilton Air Force 


Base , 


Novato 





Sonoma County, Santa Rosa 
Napa County, Napa 

The following is an estimate of the proportion of each county's corridor 
traffic that each of these airports might attract (in millions): 





Marin 

Corridor 

Passengers 


Napa 

Corridor 
Passengers 


Solano 

Corridor 

Passengers 


Sonoma 

Corridor 

Passengers 


TOTAL 

Corridor 

Passengers 


Airport " 


% 1975 1985 


% 1975 1985 


% 1975 1985 


% 1975 1985 


1975 1985 


Hamilton 


90 0.4 1.4 


80 0.1 0.3 


20 0.1 


90 0.2 0.7 


0.7 2.5 


Sonoma Co. 


20 0.1 0.3 


20 0.1 





90 0.2 0.7 


0.3 1.1 


Napa Co. 


60 0.3 1.0 


100 0.1 0.4 


30 0.1 0.2 


50 0.1 0.4 


0.6 2.0 



* Prepared for the Regional Airport Systems Study Committee April 7, 1972 



VI-19 



This particular estimate would identify Hamilton as being able to accommodate 
the largest number of passengers, if the assumption of the distribution of 
passenger choice is reasonable and if_ the relative passenger growth projec- 
tions in each county are appropriate. If it were assumed that Napa airport 
might uniquely draw a portion of Contra Costa County passengers, then 
Hamilton and Napa would be similar. 

A recap of the status of each of these airports is as follows: 

Hamilton Air Force Base - is currently an active military facility with 
about 60,000 annual aircraft operations. The capacity analysis suggests an 
additional capability for 70,000 annual civilian operations or about 4.5 
million annual passengers, if no 747 type aircraft are in the mix. Some 
airspace conflict would occur with NAS Alameda. 

The County of Marin has made a preliminary contact with the Air Force relative 
to joint military/civil use of Hamilton. No firm agreement has been reached 
to date. Department of Defense representatives at local airspace utilization 
committee meetings indicate a reasonable possibility for joint use, but 
the initiative action and financial responsibility must come from a local 
governmental sponsor . 

The physical plant has a major radar control capability, an 8000' runway, an 
ILS, and approach lighting system and is completely equipped for jet airline 
service . 

The noise evaluations indicate, at least theoretically, that a civilian jet 
traffic load would have no noticeable effect beyond that now existing. 
The reason for this is that the individual military jet operations are so 
much louder (many using after burners) that, despite an equal number of 
civilian operations, the military events would dominate the NEF contours. 

Sonoma County - has a history of airline service dating to the late 1940's. 
Currently it has limited jet service by Air West and service by two third 
level carriers. The FAA has programmed an ILS and approach light system 
installation within the next two years. Current operations are predomin- 
antly general aviation. Airspace would not be a problem. Capacity could 
easily accommodate the 1.1 million corridor passengers projected for 1985. 

The airport is located some distance from Santa Rosa and limited civil jet 
operations would not have a major noise impact on exi sting land uses. 

Napa County - this airport, in conjunction with SF0, OAK, and SJC, actually 
provided the minimum average ground travel distance (21 miles) of any of 
the original airport alternatives. 



VI-20 



The airport master plan through stage IV has been adopted by the Board of 
Supervisors and would envisage jet airline operations with about 1 million 
passengers annually. 

The FAA has planned an ILS for Napa. The planned runway system is capable 
of handling the projected demand but airspace coordination is required 
between Hamilton and Napa arrivals particularly if steep approaches to 
Napa would not be possible. 

Napa has not had heavy airline jet operations and, while the area around 
the airport today is open, increased noise levels will be a major concern. 



VI-21 



RECOMMENDATION FOR A FUTURE NORTHERN COUNTIES AIRLINE SERVICE POINT* 



The staff paper of April 7 estimated the future demand for California 
Corridor service which each of three airports might attract from Marin, 
Napa, Solano, and Sonoma Counties. 

At its April 7 meeting, the Committee requested staff to further refine 
this for a specific recommendation for airline service points. 

The staff recommends as follows: 

The level of future demand for corridor service (estimated for the 
northern counties as 1.0 to 2.5 million annual passengers) is sufficiently 
high to support service, although it would not significantly relieve the 
regional demand forecast of 72 million annual passengers. 

This would suggest that the decision of corridor service is a matter of 
local determination based upon the judgment of travel benefits vs. 
community impact. 

As a general airspace comment, the FAA has indicated that any corridor 
service to a northern county airport that required a stop at SFO, OAK, 
or SJC would create a serious airspace problem in the mid-Bay. 

With respect to general aviation demand, there is a significant role for 
Napa and Sonoma County airports. 

Sonoma County 

This airport would uniquely serve the northernmost areas and would offer a 
limited advantage to Napa and Marin County residents. It is suggested that 
corridor service here will depend upon what happens at Napa or Hamilton. 

Napa County 

The passenger demand here could be greater than that shown in the April 7 
paper when portions of Contra Costa County are included. This was also 
true when Napa was included as a regional service point. The Napa potential 
would be reduced, however, if the Committee identifies airline service for 
Travis AFB. 



* Prepared for the Regional Airport Systems Study Committee April 20, 1972 



VI-22 



The airspace in the San Pablo Bay area is a problem if jet aircraft traffic 
serves both Hamilton and Napa, particularly if Runway 18 departures are 
used at Napa for noise abatement purposes. 

The Napa Valley area has not been exposed to heavy jet operations. If a 
choice would have to be made, then, based upon these factors I would 
identify Napa as the second most likely service point for corridor service 
to the northern counties. 

Hamilton AFB 

Of the three corridor service points, this airport potentially would serve 
the largest number of passengers. It has a history of military jet 
operations with high noise levels. Citizen concern at the hearings seemed 
to focus on the ability to control the level of civil jet aircraft activity 
to just the Corridor service. 

Because of the military ownership of Hamilton, the actual availability is 
a question at this time, although indications seem to favor joint use. 

Hamilton has a prior airspace usage that could accommodate civil jet 
aircraft. 

Either Hamilton or Napa Airport could provide a service point for the 
California Corridor. If a selection had to be made, I would identify 
Hamilton as having the best potential in the northern counties for air- 
line service in the corridor. 



VI-23 



AN EVALUATION OF THE BAY AREA MILITARY AIRPORTS* 



Included in the initial airport alternatives were Hamilton and Travis 
Air Force Bases. The Committee has asked the staff to prepare a 
preliminary evaluation of the potential for civilian use of Naval Air 
Stations Alameda and Moffett Field, and for Crissy Field, a U.S. Army 
facility at the Presidio. 



ALAMEDA 

Background 

NAS Alameda is a major West Coast naval air facility, one of the two 
deep-water carrier ports the Navy has on the West Coast. The Naval Air 
Rework Facility (NARF) located at NAS Alameda provides aircraft mainten- 
ance for many naval air activities on the West Coast. NAS Alameda has 
a total of approximately 9,100 employees (1 ,300 military, 1 ,800 civilian, 
and 6,000 at the NARF). There are approximately 1,500 additional naval 
personnel attached to the fleet squadrons homebased at NAS Alameda. 
The Naval Air Reserve uses Alameda as their Bay Area training center. 

The physical plant includes two runways, 7200' and 8000' in length, with 
a combined activity level of about 140,000 annual operations. There is 
a direct airspace relationship between OAK traffic and Alameda's, which, 
in a positive control environment, requires a one-for-one handling of 
certain flights. 

Noise contours would suggest minimal impact on certain parts of the cities 
of Alameda and Oakland, and a larger impact on the Seventh Street Terminal 
area and Yerba Bueno and Treasure Islands. There would also be a flight- 
path departure impact on the Berkeley area. 

Staff Comment 

NAS Alameda is a major naval facility with unique features not available 
to the Navy in other locations. Light attack aircraft squadrons from 
carriers utilize NAS Lemoore, thereby reducing somewhat the noise and air 
traffic impact on the Bay Area. There still remains at Alameda fleet 
squadrons, maintenance, test flights, and naval reserve training. 

The geographic location and the air traffic relationship to OAK offer no 
unique advantage for civil use that does not now exist at OAK. 



* Prepared for the Regional Airport Systems Study Committee April 17, 1972 



VI-24 



MOFFETT FIELD 



Background 

This naval airport has operational squadrons of anti-submarine turbo- 
prop patrol aircraft stationed there as well as the Ames Laboratories of 
NASA. The total annual operations in 1968 were 114,000. The military 
employment is 650, civilian is 420, and NASA-Ames is 1763. Additionally, 
of the many units which rotate to Pacific bases, approximately 2500 
military personnel are always homebased at Moffett. 

There are dual runways, the longer of which is 9200' in length. With 
some integrated traffic procedures, SJC and Moffett are able to operate 
without interference. 

The Committee has been furnished with a copy of the City of Sunnyvale's 
resolution 166072 which opposes the "increase in size, intensity of use, 
or number of jetcraft using the airfield, either while under the juris- 
diction of the U.S. Navy or in any subsequent civilian operation." 
In checking with military channels, Cdr. William Barker, representing the 
Department of Defense on the Committee, can at this time find no plans 
to terminate usage by the Navy. 

Noise within the communities of Sunnyvale and Mt. View is not as great as 
it was in the 1 950 ' s when fighter type aircraft were regularly operating 
into and out of NAS Moffett. There was no noise analysis done for Moffett 
by the RASS contractor. 

Staff Comment 

Moffett was not included in the original analysis of alternatives because 
it offered no unique access, noise abatement, cost, or capacity features 
not already available at SJC or Site E. The Committee has recently removed 
Site E from active consideration and has been cautioned by San Jose that 
environmental considerations may limit SJC to less than its runway capacity. 
Because of this, it may now be worthwhile for the Committee to identify 
the possibility of a future need of Moffett for capacity purposes. If the 
facility should become available for civil use at a later date, the 
conditions of community need vs. impact could be reviewed. At that time, 
it may be possible to integrate use of Moffett with SJC. In the meantime, 
no need to consider NAS Moffett Field for joint use would seem necessary. 

CRISSY FIELD 

Background 

The 2600' long runway serves as a small airplane/helicopter airport for 
access to the Presidio. There is a very low level of activity, estimated 
to be about 5000 annual operations. The high terrain at one end and the 
high incidence of fog provide some constraints on the use of the airport. 



VI-25 



The preliminary plans for the Golden Gate National Recreation area include 
this area. NORCALSTOL included Crissy in their evaluations. Access, land 
use, community structure, noise, and weather conditions were identified 
as major problems. Airspace separation from other Bay Area traffic depends 
heavily upon future air navigation capabilities and a highly maneuverable 
aircraft. 

Staff Comment 

Its current low level of use for military liaison is appropriate to its 
location and it does not appear to have any significant civil use as far 
as air travel to and from the Region is concerned. 



VI-26 



ALTERNATIVES REVISION # 1* 



ASSUMPTIONS AND CONSTRAINTS 



Revision 

Revision #1 includes the remaining airport sites and reflects the 
new passenger projections as well as the following assumptions, 
constraints, and qualifications. 

1. Passenger Projections (millions) 



1975 
1980 
1985 



31 ** 
47 ** 

72 



2. Airport Capacities and Runway Requirements 



Airport 

San Francisco (SFO) 



Oakland (OAK) 

San Jose (SJC) 
Travis Air Force Base 



Annual Passengers 
(millions) 

33 and below 

36 

43 



13 and below 
17 

24 

8-11 

2-9 
13 

30 



Runways 

Existing 
One additional 
One new close in and one 
additional set of two separ- 
ated for simultaneous use 

Existing 

Existing configuration with 

constraints*** 

One additional close in*** 

Existing 

Existing military - dual 
Additional civilian runway 
Additional civilian runway 
with "combined use" of 
military runway 



* Prepared for the Regional Airport Systems Study Committee April 19, 1972 

** These numbers reflect an error in computation here, but were revised in 
alternative revisions #2, 3, and 4. They should be 28 for 1975 and 
44 for 1980. 

*** No large aircraft separation requirements and no traffic conflicts from 
NAS Alameda or Hayward. 



VI-27 



Alternatives - #1 



1985 


Airport 


1 


2 


3 


4 


5 


6 


7 


8 


9 




San Francisco 


33 


28 


a a 

28 


22 


22 


32 


33 


31 


43 




Oakland 


A 1 

31 


a 

26 


28 


O A 

24 


29 


T A 

13 


T A 

1 3 


A 1 

31 


18 




San Jose 


8 


8 


8 


8 


8 




8 


8 

o 


i i 




Travis/Contra Costa 






7 


18 


T A 

1 3 


A A 

24 


1 A 

18 








Napa 




10 


1 
















Northern Counties 
















2 






i r\ a r t at /\ i 

1985 TOTAL 


72 


72 


72 


72 


72 


72 


72 


72 


72 


t a a a 

1 980 


San Francisco 


23 


26 


A A 

20 


a a 

22 


31 


30 


27 


* 

36 






Oakl and 


18 


1 A 

13 


T A 

13 


1 A 

1 3 


1 A 

13 


"7 

7 


T A 

13 


7 






San Jose 


6 


7 


6 


8 


3 


6 


6 


4 






Travis/Contra Costa 






8 


4 




4 










Napa 




1 


















Northern Counties 














1 








1980 TOTAL 


47 


47 


47 


47 


47 


47 


47 


47 




1975 


San Francisco 


17 


17 


20 


20 


* 
26 












Oakland 


9 


7 


6 


7 


3 












San Jose 


5 


5 


3 


4 


2 












Travis/Contra Costa 




2 


2 
















1975 TOTAL 


31 


31 


31 


a l 

31 


A T 

31 










1970 


San Francisco 


13 


.9 


















Oakland 


2 


.0 


















San Jose 


1 


.6 


















1970 TOTAL 


17 


.5 

















Air Transport Association percentages for SF0, OAK, and SJC applied 
to RASS passenger forecasts result in the allocations shown in the 
last columns. 



VI-28 



Airport 

New Contra Costa 
County airport 



Napa County 

Sonoma County 

Hamilton Air Force Base 



Annual Passengers 
(millions) 

14 

24 
30 

2-10 

2 

2 



Runways 

One runway 
Two runways 
Three runways 

Existing 

Existing 

Existing 



San Jose Municipal Airport 
3.6 million annual passengers 
8.0 million annual passengers 



City Council's present expansion program 

J. Nissen's warning of a not-to-exceed 
level due to environmental constraints 



Oakland/San Jose (OAK/SJC) 

Interchangeable passenger allocation for 1975 short run 
Northern Counties 

Account for small part of regional traffic and cannot be counted on to 
meet regional growth beyond locally generated California Corridor traffic 

Option left open to local sponsorship or local veto 

Alternative #9 

Reflects Air Transport Association percentages for SFO, OAK, and SJC 
applied to adopted forecast: 





1975 


1980 


1985 


SFO 


84% 


76% 


60% 


OAK 


10% 


16% 


26% 


SJC 


6% 


8% 


14% 



VI-29 



ALTERNATIVES REVISION #2* 



ASSUMPTIONS AND CONSTRAINTS 



Following consideration of eleven preliminary alternatives, the revisions 
offer various forecast-matching combinations for the Committee to choose 
from or change. Each combination has something "right" and "wrong" with 
it - noise, Bay fill, access, capital cost, etc. - to some degree. 

Revision #1 reflected the Committee's passenger projection divided among 
remaining airport sites as well as stated major assumptions, constraints, 
and qualifications. It tried to show a "reasonable" transition in its 
evolution of alternatives from 1970 to 1975-1980-1985. It drew helpful 
comments which are reflected in Revision #2. 

Revision #2 anticipates the Committee directing staff to focus on select 
combinations for more detailed evaluations. 

MAJOR ASSUMPTIONS, CONSTRAINTS, AND QUALIFICATIONS 

1. Passenger Projections (millions) 

1975 28 

1980 44 

1985 72 

2. Airport Capacities and Runway Requirements 

Annual 
Passengers 

Airport (millions) 

San Francisco (SFO) 28.5 and below 

33 
36 
43 



Runways 

Existing 
Existing** 
One additional 

•kick 



Oakland (OAK) 



13 
19 
24 
38 



and below 



Existing 
Existing** 

One additional close in 
One additional far out 



* Prepared for the Regional Airport Systems Study Committee May 1, 1972 
** Improved air traffic control 

*** Represents Air Transport Association percentage for SFO applied to 
RASS passenger forecast 



VI-30 



Airport 

San Jose (SJC) 

Moffett Field 

Travis Air Force Base 



New Contra Costa 
County airport 



Napa County 
Sonoma County 
Hamilton AFB 



Annual 
Passengers 
(millions) 

8-11 

8 

1-2 
13 

30 



14 
24 



2-10 

2 

2 



Runways 

Existing with extension 30 Right 
Existing 

Existing military-dual 
Additional civilian runway 
Additional civilian runway with 
"combined use" of military runway 

One runway 
Two runways 

Existing 

Existing 

Existing 



San Jose Municipal Airport 

3.6 million annual passengers - City Council's present expansion program 

8.0 million annual passengers - J. Nissen's warning of a not-to-be 

exceeded level due to environmental constraints 

Oakland/San Jose (OAK/SJC) 

Interchangeable passenger allocation for 1975 short run 
Northern Counties 

Account for small part of regional traffic and cannot be counted on to 
meet regional growth beyond locally generated California Corridor traffic 

Option left open to local sponsorship or local veto 

Alternative #9 

Reflects Air Transport Association percentages for SFO, OAK, and SJC 
applied to adopted forecast: 



VI-31 



Alternatives - #2 



1985 



1980 



1975 



1970 



Airport 


1 


2 


3 


4 


5 


6 


7 


8 


9 


10 


11 


12 


13 


San Francisco 


33 


29 


28 


22 


22 


32 


33 


21 


43 


26 


32 


32 


24 


Oakland 


31 


24 


28 


24 


29 


13 


13 


31 


18 


38 


24 


24 


19 


jail uujc 


« 

O 


ft 

o 


« 

(J 


ft 

(J 


« 


"5 


ft 

o 


O 




Q 
o 


lfi 






San Jose/Moffett 
























16 


16 


Travis/Contra Costa 






7 


18 


13 


24 


18 












13 


Napa 




11 


1 






















Northern Counties 
















2 












1985 TOTAL 


72 


72 


72 


72 


72 


72 


72 


72 


72 


72 


72 


72 


72 


San Francisco 


23 


23 


20 


23 


28 


28 


24 


* 

33 












Oa k 1 and 


1 5 


1 3 


13 


13 


13 


7 


1 3 


7 












San Jose 


6 


7 


6 


8 


3 


6 


6 


4 












Travis/Contra Costa 






5 






3 
















Napa 




1 
























Northern Counties 














1 














1980 TOTAL 


44 


44 


44 


44 


44 


44 


44 


44 





















* 


San Francisco 


17 


19 


18 


23 


Oakland 


6 


6 


6 


3 


San Jose 


5 


3 


4 


2 


Travis/Contra Costa 










1975 TOTAL 


28 


28 


28 


28 


San Francisco 


13.9 








Oakland 


2.0 








San Jose 


1.6 








1970 TOTAL 


17.5 









* Air Transport Association percentages for SF0, OAK, and SJC applied to 
passenger forecasts result in the allocation shown in the last columns. 



VI-32 



ALTERNATIVES REVISION #3 



r\ 1 r \JU r L 


i 




c 


q 


A 
f 


c 



c 



7 
/ 


Q 
O 


y 


1 u 


l I 


JQII 1 1 Ql 1^ 1 j^U 


o o 


97 

C 1 


99 


?? 




77 

JO 


£ 1 




70 
Sc. 


9/1 


70 
oc. 


Oakl and 


^1 

O 1 


97 

C 1 


9A 


?Q 


1 7 


1 "5 


qi 


7Q 


on 


1 Q 


OA 
C.H 


San Jose 


8 


8 


8 


8 


3 


8 


8 


8 






8 


San Jose/Moffett 


















16 


16 








7 
i 


1 o 






1 o 








1 o 


p 
o 


Napa 














2 










Hami 1 ton 




3 




















1985 TOTAL 


72 


72 


72 


72 


72 


72 


72 


72 


72 


72 


72 



1980 San Francisco 


23 


20 


23 


28 


28 


Oakland 


15 


13 


13 


13 


7 


San Jose 


6 


6 


8 


3 


6 


Travis/Contra Costa 




5 






3 


Napa 












Hami 1 ton 












1980 TOTAL 


44 


44 


44 


44 


44 



1975 San Francisco 19 18 

Oakland 6 6 

San Jose 3 4 
Travis/Contra Costa 

1975 TOTAL 28 28 



1970 San Francisco 13.9 

Oakland 2.0 

San Jose 1 .6 

1970 TOTAL 17.5 



* An early-introduction option of local rather than regional service 
significance. Such choice would subtract one million passengers from 
some other airport in the combination selected. 



VI-33 



ALTERNATIVES REVISION #4 



1985 



1980 



Ai rport 


1 


o 
c 





4 


r 



b 


7 

/ 


o 
o 


y 


i n 
1 U 


1 1 


San Francisco* 


33 


32 


31 


26 


27 


32 


30 


22 


26 


33 


22 


uaK i ano 


Ol 


oo 


Tn 
oil 


"5 O 

3o 


07 
CI 


O/I 


on 


on 

^y 


Ol 


1 o 
1 


O/l 


San Jose 


8 




8 


8 


8 


8 


8 


8 




8 


8 


San Jose/Moffett 




12 














12 






Napa or Hamilton 






3 




3 




3 










Travis/Contra Costa 










/ 


o 
o 


1 1 


1 o 

1 3 


1 3 


1 o 

1 o 


1 o 
1 o 


iyyb iuial 


7 O 
/ I 


"7 O 


/ c 


i o 


70 


"7 O 

/ £ 


70 

1 c. 


7 o 
Id. 


7 O 


70 
1 C 


70 


San Francisco 


23 


20 


23 


















flaH and 


1 D 


1 


1 o 


















San Jose 


6 


6 


6 


















Travis/Contra Costa 




5 


2 


















Napa 








1 ** 














Hamilton 








1 ** 














1980 TOTAL 


44 


44 


44 



















1975 San Francisco 19 

Oakland 6 

San Jose 3 
Travis/Contra Costa 

1975 TOTAL 28 



1970 San Francisco 13.9 
Oakland 2.0 
San Jose 1 .6 

1970 TOTAL 17.5 

* SF0 indicated that it is now considering a new north/south runway at the 
west end of the airport. While such a runway may offer efficiencies in 
airport operations and noise abatement advantages, RASS analysis would not 
indicate that it is required for capacity purposes insofar as the Region 
is concerned. 

** An early-introduction option of local rather than regional service signif- 
icance. Such choice would subtract one million passengers from some other 
airport in the combination selected. 



VI-34 



CHAPTER VII 
COORDINATION WITH OTHER AGENCIES 



An integral part of the Study has been continuous coordination with a number 
of agencies and interested groups. The Committee members themselves were 
elected officials from nine Bay Area counties and airport managers from 
San Francisco, Oakland, and San Jose airports. 

Open meetings of the Committee were held, with the following organizations 
acting as ex-officio, advisory, non-voting members: Federal Aviation Admin- 
istration, S.F. Bay Conservation and Development Commission, Bay Area Rapid 
Transit District, State of California Business and Transportation Agency 
and Department of Aeronautics, Bay Area Council, Metropolitan Transportation 
Commission, Department of Defense, Federal Highway Administration. Input 
from these ex-officio members included: 

- The Federal Aviation Administration provided continuous verbal and 
written advice on airspace and established a special FAA task force 
to study airspace problems raised by the Regional Airport Systems 
Study Committee. * Coordination with FAA also included linking the 
study into the National Airport Systems Plan. 

- S.F. Bay Conservation and Development Commission gave the Committee 
continuous guidance on its Bay fill permit requirements and the RASSC 
preliminary alternatives. (See Chapter III for a detailed discussion 
of the Bay fill positions of BCDC and the Bay Model of the U.S. Army 
Corps of Engi neers . ) 

- The State Department of Aeronautics was represented at RASSC meetings 
and public hearings, stressing coordinated aviation planning to bring 
RmSS and the other regional studies into the Statewide Master Plan of 
aviation, and specifically discussing noise standards and means of 
noise measurement. 

- The Department of Defense was represented by staff from the Naval Air 
Station, Alameda giving input on military airspace matters, availability 
of military bases for partial civilian use, and RASSC preliminary findings 

Throughout the study, contact with other agencies increased. These groups were 
kept appraised of technical data, preliminary decisions, public response and 
other parts of the study, in order to have as open and flexible a study as 
possible. Constant contact was kept with Bay Area airport managers (from county 
and general aviation airports), with the President's Aviation Advisory Commission 
with the Department of Housing and Urban Development (who funded most of the 
study), with the Air Transport Association, with San Francisco Planning and Urban 
Renewal Association, with city and county planning departments throughout the 



O'Brien, Paul J. A Dynamic Simulation Study of Air Traffic Capacity in the 
San Francisco Bay Terminal Area . August, 1971. FAA-RD-71-37 



VII-1 



Bay Area, with environmental groups and interested citizens, with the press, 
with county airport land use commissions (charged with coordinating land use 
planning adjacent to airports), and with study sub-contractors such as the 
Bay Area Air Pollution Control District. These organizations and individuals 
in turn attended and advised the RASSC at regular meetings, spoke at public 
hearings, and sent in detailed written comments. 

In addition to these groups, there was a core group which sent representatives 
to most meetings, met with individual Committee and staff members, testified, 
and provided written input. This group included the League of Women Voters, 
the Oakland Tribune, the Sierra Club, Save San Francisco Bay Association, and 
Save Our Valley Action Committee. 

The RASSC also met with the Civil Aeronautics Board and the California Public 
Utilities Commission, because the success of a regional airport system plan 
will greatly depend upon the successful allocation of traffic to each individual 
site chosen in order to attain full usage of all facilities. Allocation issues 
have to be resolved if planned improvements in the Bay Area airport system are to 
take place. For this reason, the Regional Airport Systems Study Committee met 
several times with the Civil Aeronautics Board (CAB) in an attempt to determine 
what kind of assistance it can expect from them. 

An excnange of information and opinions was established outside of the Region 
with Sacramento County and San Benito County over the Travis AFB and Hoi lister 
site alternatives. 

Coordination was established and information exchanged between the Bay Area 
and Southern California and San Diego regional aviation studies. 

Correspondence follows from the Federal Aviation Administration, the Air 
Transport Association, San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission, 
Save San Francisco Bay Association, and San Francisco Bay Area Council: 



VII-2 



DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 
FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 



San Francisco Collocated Offices 
831 Mitten Road 

Burlingame, California 94010 // 




23 May 1972 



Mr. Warren Boggess 
Chairman of the Regional Airport 
Systems Study Committee (RASSC) 
Association of Bay Area Governments 
Hotel Claremont 
Berkeley, California 94705 



Dear Mr. Boggess: 

As you know the Steering Committee of the Northern California Joint 
Committee for Airspace Utilization has undertaken a task to make an 
airspace review of issues related to certain airport alternatives being 
reviewed by RASSC for possible adoption. Transmitted herewith are 
the conclusions of that airspace review as discussed at the Northern 
California Steering Committee meeting 11 May and as presented at the 
RASSC meeting 19 May by Messrs. Muncy and Brink of the Federal 
Aviation Administration (FAA) . The issues studied are numerically 
identified below together with the findings. 

Issue Number 1 - Impact on Sacramento area airspace of using Travis 
AFB as a regional jet air carrier airport accommodating up to 404,000 
civil instrument operations per year. 

This review considered a conservative growth projection to 462,000 
instrument operations by 1982 for Sacramento area airports in addition 
to the proposed Travis AFB operation. With such use of Travis AFB 
additional airspace would be needed primarily in the eastern quadrant 
from the air base to accommodate arrival and departure flows. Thus 
airspace over and adjacent to the Sacramento complex would be involved 
with operations to and from Travis AFB. However, the study revealed 
that with some significant changes in the use of that airspace and with 
the possible provision of some additional navigational aids the Travis 
AFB operation as identified could be accommodated from an airspace 
use standpoint. The changes needed in airspace designation and 
navigational aids have not been specifically identified at this point. 
Also such use of Travis would be restrictive on instrument operations 
to the Buchanan Field Airport. It should be noted that the County of 
Sacramento has reserved their concurrence on this finding pending their 
further evaluation. 



VH-3 



Page 2 



Issue Number 2 - Impact on Bay Area airspace of using Hamilton AFB as 
a jet air carrier airport accommodating up to 41,800 annual civil instrument 
operations . 

Again, some significant changes would be required in the use of Bay Area 
airspace as well as navigational aid improvements. Such operations into 
Hamilton AFB would impact specifically on NAS Alameda traffic and that 
Sacramento/Travis traffic operating to and from the west. However, with 
some revisions to current operational procedures and airspace up to 41,800 
civil jet operations could be accommodated at Hamilton AFB. This finding 
is made on the assumption that the bulk of these operations would consist 
of California corridor traffic (with many of the flights making en route stops 
at Oakland and San Francisco) or northwest coastal flights to and from the 
Portland-Seattle market. This finding is also based on the traffic volume 
at Travis AFB basically remaining as it is today. 

Issue Number 3 - The impact on NAS Alameda and Hayward Airport traffic 
of increased Oakland Airport operations. 

The instrument approaches to Alameda Runway 31 and to Hayward Runway 28 
directly conflict with instrument arrival and departure procedures at 
Oakland Airport. The Alameda Runway 31 final approach path and the semi- 
final maneuvering turn-on airspace crosses the Hayward Airport and the 
Oakland final approach then approximates a parallel to the 29 ILS Oakland 
final approach course for 12 miles at altitudes that impact on Oakland 
arrivals and departures. The analysis has revealed that an instrument 
arrival to Alameda Runway 31 precludes at least two instrument operations 
at Oakland Airport. An instrument arrival to Hayward Runway 28 would 
preclude one instrument operation at Oakland and up to two Oakland 
operations if low weather ceilings required the protection of a Hayward 
missed approach. The situation as pertains to Alameda would not be 
as critical if the Runway 25 complex is being used at Alameda. 

This review does not consider Oakland Runway 27 instrument operations 
which would further compound the problem. Thus it can be seen that Hayward 
and NAS Alameda operations will have an increasing restrictive influence 
on Oakland Airport instrument operations as they expand in the future. 

Issue Number 4 - Impact on Bay Area airspace of using NAS Moffett as a 
jet air carrier airport. 

Significant airspace conflict would result from expanding the use of Moffett 
to include civil jet air carriers. The primary airports which would be affected 
are the San Francisco Airport and the San Jose Airport. Departures from 
Moffett because of the San Francisco final approach course which lies 
approximately six miles northwest of the runway must turn either left or 
right. A left turn places the departure head-on into' the low altitude 
maneuvering airspace for the three major arrival routes to San Francisco 
from the Los Angeles Basin-Hawaii-Portland/Seattle. Extremely low altitude 
tunneling would be necessary to even alleviate this conflict and significant 



VII -4 



From FAA, p. 2 



Page 3 



environmental problems for peninsula cities would be created. Right turns 
after take-off from Moffett would have to be tunneled under the San Francisco 
and Oakland arrivals, but more importantly from a capacity standpoint there 
would be a one to one trade off the San Jose Airport departures. Although 
arrivals to Moffett would be less of a problem it is believed that Moffett 
could not sustain a significant amount of civil jet operations without 
unacceptable disruptionto the total Bay Area traffic flow. 

Issue Number 5 - Impact on Bay Area airspace of using the Napa Airport 
for civil jet air carriers. 

Assuming a precision approach navigational aid on Runway 36 at the Napa 
Airport the maneuvering airspace to final approach directly impacts on the 
Hamilton AFB final approach and the Alameda and Travis departure areas. 
Because of the geographical location of the four airports competition for 
operationally needed altitudes in the vicinity of the Richmond-Crockett 
area would have a detrimental effect on the capacity of the involved 
airports proportionate to the volume of operations projected for each. 

Issue Number 6 - Impact on Bay Area airspace of using Santa Rosa Airport 
as a jet air carrier airport accommodating up to 41,800 annual civil 
instrument operations. 

Assuming that Santa Rosa Airport can be included in a pure radar environment 
procedural development could be effected to sustain a moderate amount 
of jet air carrier traffic. Although some interaction between Santa Rosa 
arrivals and Hamilton departures would exist it would be minimal. This 
conclusion is based on the assumption that the Santa Rosa volume would not 
exceed the 41,800 instrument operations previously used for Hamilton AFB. 

In conclusion it is significant to note that each alternative listed above has 
a direct airspace impact on other alternatives. In other words the expansion 
of Travis AFB would adversely affect expansion at either Napa and Hamilton. 
The expansion of Napa would adversely affect the expansion at Hamilton AFB 
and Travis AFB. The expansion at Santa Rosa Airport would affect expansion 
at Hamilton AFB and any expansion at NAS Moffett would adversely affect 
expansion at any of the three other major Bay Area airports. 

Please contact me if there are any questions or if discussion is needed on 
this report. 

Sincerely, 




Steering Committee Chairman 
Northern California Joint Committee for Airspace Utilization 



From FAA, p. 3 



VI 1-5 



March % 1972 



WRITTEN TESTIMONY SUBMITTED BY THE AIR TRANSPORT 
ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA COVERING TECHNICAL 
REPORTS FOR THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA 
REGIONAL AIRPORT SYSTEMS STUDY 



This is a supplement to testimony offered by Mr. John Duba, 
Vice President, Airport Facilities, Air Transport Association of 
America, on January 10, 197 2 in San Jose, and Mr. M. C. Kronshage, 
Director, Western Operations, Air Transport Association of America, 
on February 3, 1972 in San Francisco. We have followed this study 
since inception beginning with the BASAR organization and into its 
present development under the auspices of your Committee. We 
appreciate the opportunities to periodically review the course of the 
project with Mr. Walter Gillfillan and your consultants. 



GENERAL COMMENTS 

The hub of aviation activity for Northern California centers in 
the San Francisco Bay Area. The San Francisco/Los Angeles corridor 
is today the major air traffic corridor in the United States. For this 
reason the scheduled air carriers serving the Bay Area feel that the 
regional aviation system plan developed by your committee could have 
a wide range effect on their future operations and the availability of 
air transportation to the public. 

The intent of your initial series of public hearings was to receive 
public reaction to your technical reports and would serve as one of the 
inputs into the development of the final system plan. We will, therefore, 
confine most of our comments to the reports and conclude with some of 
our thoughts regarding the future course of this project. 



VI 1-6 



March 3, 1972 



AIRPORT AND AIRSPACE CAPACITY ANALYSIS 

Because of numerous assumptions inherent in the analysis, 
the airspace and air traffic flow of the future results in a somewhat 
generalized profile of what capabilities may exist in the I980's for 
movement within the airports and airspace in the Bay Area. 

The effects of wake turbulence on separation standards will 
have a far reaching impact on capacity as already demonstrated by 
FAA "heavy jet" separation standards. The introduction of additional 
DC-10's and L-1011's in the next few years could, figuratively, upset 
all airspace capacity quotes addressed at this time. 

Our more specific comments are: 

(1) We do not believe that the state of the art will be 
so sophisticated to yield the magnitude of in- 
creases resulting from your assumptions under 
paragraph 3. 1. 5 of CAAS being in effect and a 

6° glide slope being a reality. 

(2) In paragraph 4. 2. 4, we believe that the injection 
of any appreciable amount of traffic from site "E" 
would affect all the major Bay Area airports due 
to the complex interface of departure /arrival 
routes for SFO/OAK/SJC/MOFFETT/ALAMEDA. 

(3) Paragraphs 4. 3. 4, 4.4.2, and 4. 4. 3 which 
respectively address PANCAP for both Hamilton 
and Travis AFB, may be somewhat optimistic 

in that under present operating criteria, according 
FAA Air Traffic, there exists airspace congestion 
and the capacity figures quoted in the subject 
report are considerably higher than are now being 
realized. 

(4) Sound abatement is becoming an important ingredient 
into the airspace problem. 



From ATA Testimony 



VII-7 



March 3, 1972 



AVIATION EFFECT ON AIR QUALITY 

This report is a rational approach to a difficult problem. 
However, no matter how precise the method may be, the end result 
will be no better than the input data. Revisions will be necessary to 
reflect more reliable data as they become available. Such data are, 
or will shortly be, available for gaseous emissions obtained under 
EPA sponsorship. 

The EPA work, however, did not include anything on particulate 
matter. We feel that the particulate data produced by the Los Angeles 
Air Pollution Control District method is unreasonably high and that 
conclusions based upon its use will prove misleading. This method 
produces results higher than that of other contemporary methods by a 
factor as great as 10 or even 20. Since serious problems exist at 
San Francisco and San Jose, confirmation of these data become 
important. 

As cited on III- 3, a uniform 1. 56 pounds of SO2 per 100 gallons 
of fuel burned was used in this report. This is equivalent to a total 
sulfur content of . 11% by weight. This is high in comparison to fuel 
boarded at San Francisco. One airline reports the average to be 
about . 04% and . 06% systemwide. The sulfur content is expected to 
trend downward in the future,, largely because of the increased use of 
hydrotreating in turbine fuel production. 

The report assumes that average emission factors for commercial 
turbine aircraft also apply to military fuel usage. To the extent that 
military engines operate at a comparable engine cycle, this assumption 
may be justified. However, under afterburning conditions, emission 
factors are significantly higher. Therefore, emissions attributed to 
military operations are low by some factor in proportion to the frequency 
of takeoffs with afterburner in operation. 



From ATA Testimony 

VII-8 



March 3, 1972 



ECONOMIC & SPATIAL IMPACT OF ALTERNATIVE 
AIRPORT LOCATIONS 



Our concern is the general purpose and objective of this report. 
If the report is to be used to measure the economic impact of alternative 
systems, then we believe a useful function will be served. 

However, if this report is to be used as a tool for income and 
population redistribution, then the possibility exists that this could 
be accomplished at the expense of an efficient future aviation system. 

It is difficult for us to offer specific comments until more 
definitive plans are developed. 



From ATA Testimony 



VII-9 



March 3, 1972 



AVIATION NOISE EVALUATIONS AND PROJECTIONS 
FOR THE BAY REGION 



We feel that there are limitations inherent in the use of NEF's 
for other than for the most gross planning considerations. Generalized 

assumptions usually made are: 



(1) That an equivalent noise exposure is generated 
by treating the distribution of actual takeoff 

flight path profiles as a finite set of single- gradient 
paths representing several typical gross weights 
broadly related to stage length. 

(2) That the Effective Perceived Noise Levels of an 
aircraft are uniquely defined by thrust level and 
distance to observer only. 

(3) That arriving and departing of different models of 
aircraft accurately follow common explicit ground- 
defined flight tracks, particularly with respect to 
turns, under varying conditions of winds and 
aircraft performance. 

(4) That tracks delineated by SID's in the immediate 
vicinity of the airport are explicit. SID's are 
seldom followed in day-to-day operations. They 
are followed only when a communication failure 
develops. 

(5) That ILS-IFR type landing approaches prevail for 
all air carrier operations. (This is certainly not 
realistic in the SFO Bay region, considering the 
high percentage VFR weather conditions and the 
FAA "keep-em high 1 ' policy. ) 

(6) That the noise characteristics of several types 

of aircraft of a given class can be represented with 
acceptable accuracy by a single set of noise levels 
common to all, and that the resulting characteristic 
curves are equally valid over the entire range and 
for all operating conditions. 



From ATA Testimony 



VI 1-1 



March 3, 1972 



Of the above generalizations several have been identified as 
having tolerances associated with them of the order of + 3 to 4db, and 
the final contours are frequently held out as having no better than 
+ 5db reliability. Furthermore, the value of the NEF study is derogated 
if the assumptions for future fleet mixes, future aircraft traffic patterns 
and volume of operations do not represent the best assessment of 
these factors. 

The NEF is described as a "measurement" of community noise 
environment. In this case they are "computed in", not measured, and 
even the 1970 contours are presumptions arrived at by calculation. 

To our knowledge no NEF analysis of existing operations at any 
airport has ever been followed up by comprehensive community measure- 
ments to verify the reliability of contour locations. We recommend 
that this be done. 

The projections for the number of operations in 1985 may be 
reasonable. The assumptions on the mix of aircraft types, however, 
tend to overstate the proportion of operations of the large high-bypass - 
ratio fan powered aircraft now being introduced into service, particularly 
at OAK and SJC as well as at SFO. Projections of a more realistic 
aircraft type deployment would result in a significantly larger number of 
3 and 4 engined aircraft (i.e., DC-8, 707, 727) at all three airports, 
with a cascade effect at OAK and SJC because of saturation at SFO. 
This will have a critical effect on NEF contours because of the higher 
noise levels of these aircraft, even with retrofit. 

As pointed out by the contractor, actual instrument departure 
tracks show considerable variation from those inferred solely from 
standard instrument departure (SID) routes. The same is true of 
instrument arrival tracks. Both are actively modified in real on-the-spot 
operations by traffic controllers through the use of radar vector directives, 
under both instrument and visual flight weather conditions. Hence the 
use of specific ground tracks for the NEF analysis, although a necessary 
generalization, imparts yet another source of unreality to the contours. 
In general, values on the theoretical tracks will be lower, but the 
contours will bulge and fan more. 

An example of a questionable pictorialization appears in the NEF 
contour plots for OAK. The takeoff flight track 29C is shown as taking 
an immediate northerly excursion towards Alameda as it proceeds outbound. 
This excursion is generated by the assumption that R/W29 departures can 
and do achieve the explicit track geometrically defined by SID's immediately 
after lift-off. In practice, such micro-maneuvering in the first few miles 
is seldom attempted or achieved and then only in case of an air -ground 
communicat i on failure with the aircraft. 
From ATA Testimony 



March 3, 1972 



The study anakyzed the effect at SFO for both 1970 and 1985 
operations of transferring more takeoffs from runways 28 L and R to 
runways 1 L and R by increasing the allowable crosswind component 
from 15 kts. to 20 kts. Beyond the fact that this increase may not be 
practical for safety reasons, the analysis shows the relatively insig- 
nificant benefits from this avenue of alleviation. The distribution of 
takeoffs is : 

R/W's 01 R/W's 28 Others 

15 Kt. Limitation 62% 33% 5% 

20 Kt. Limitation 72% 23% 5% 

Thus the reduction in takeoffs on runways 28 L and R is about one third. 
On the 10 log n basis used in the NEF (and CNEL) this is equivalent 
to a reduction in value (level) of less than 2 units (db)„ Obviously, in 
the interpretative terminology of the study, in which no differentiation 
for steps less than 5 or 10 units is possible, this type of operational 
change will not have a substantial effect in the planning process. 

The contractor's study assumptions for retrofit of current model 
turbofan powered aircraft still in operation in 1985 were 6 to 11 EPNdb 
reduction in approach noise levels and approximately 2 EPNdb reduction 
in the "sideline" noise levels associated with full takeoff thrust. These 
reductions may be technically feasible but are economically impractical 
and should not be a part of the noise computations. 

It is unrealistic to assume retrofit of current-day aircraft if large 
scale replacement by the new technology aircraft is postulated, or 
conversely, that there will be large scale replacement if retrofit is 
implemented. In other words, the 1985 projections are unrealistic by 
assuming both a large percentage of new aircraft and a large percentage 
of retrofitted aircraft. 

The report also implies that retrofit, together with a "cutback" 
procedure for certification of the takeoff noise, would constitute compliance 
with FAR 36. It is not possible for turbofan powered DC-8's and 707's at 
least to achieve FAR 36 compliance, even with cutback, with currently 
developed noise reduction technology. The most recent studies show 
that the area within the single event noise contours for nearly all 
models of transport aircraft are not to use ''cut-back" but on the contrary, 
to use talve-ofr thrust until an altitude of 1, 500 feet to 3, 000 feet is reached. 



From ATA lestimony 

VI 1-1 2 



March 3, 1972 



The contractor's brief study on this subject indicates that there 
is little prospect of avoiding localized sensitivities to noise from 
overflights of areas remote from airports. We cannot comment on the 
applicability of the ground traffic noise used for comparison in the 
study. We do observe, however, that calculated aircraft flyover noise 
levels shown in the report are overstated. Specific measurements 
reported by FAA agree with the calculated values only for the September 9, 
1970, data cited. All the other data collected by FAA at the Woodside 
locations for example showed considerably lower levels, seldom 
exceeding 55 db. That same data also shows ambient levels of 4-45 db 
with sounds of birds registering 50 db, barking dogs at 100-150 feet 
54-56 db, and car horns 1/4 mile away, 50-52 db. The point is, 
comparison of levels is meaningless, for if the sound simply exists 
audibly, it will be unacceptable to the person who considers it inappropriate. 



From ATA Testimony 



VII-13 



March 3, 1972 



AIRPORT ACCESS 

The Wilbur Smith Report purports as its primary objective 
the measurement of the ability of existing and planned ground and air 
transportation systems to serve airport bound traffic and parking 
demands through 1985. The major portion of the two reports, however, 
seems bent on the development of a model by which passenger demand is 
allocated to Bay Area airports. 

Without an intimate knowledge of the survey techniques, we will 
assume that the base year data (mode, trip purpose, O-D, etc. ) 
represent actual conditions. Since no recommendations are offered in 
the way of ground access improvements, we will comment on the proposed 
allocation model. 

Your assumption that 95% of all Bay Area passengers will have 
a choice of airport by 1985 does not consider the economic conditions 
necessary for the airlines to achieve this level of service. Furthermore, 
a large portion of the arrivals in San Francisco are for business purposes 
and business traffic cannot be allocated on the basis of local population 
distributions. We would suggest a breakdown of: 

(1) 50% choice of three airports 

(2) 20-25% choice of two airports 

(3) 25-30% no choice 

The ATA San Francisco forecast includes an individual passenger 
forecast of the top domestic markets at the San Francisco hub. It is a 
detailed effort to match and allocate supply with forecasted demand. It 
allows for: 

(1) Simulation of airline economic behavior by scheduling 
flights to specific cities within a state. 

(2) Eliminating the need to consider broad groupings of 
market segments which do not accurately estimate 
the scheduling picture for future periods. 

(3) Specific allocation of traffic on a market by market 
basis to individual airports within a multiple 
airport hub. 

(4) Corresponding assignment of aircraft types by seat 
capacity to match the allocated demand. 



From ATA lestimony 

VI I -1 4 



March 3, 1972 



The ATA method for passenger allocation at a multiple airport 
hub follows the "overflow" process, i. e. , as the first major airport 
approaches its capacity, the "overflow" goes to other airports., The 
following is an illustration of how the "overflow" process applies to the 
San Francisco Hub. As San Francisco approaches capacity, Oakland 
would begin to take the "overflow. " Then, as Oakland approaches its 
capacity, there would be spillover to San Jose. Additional assumptions 
are made for international schedules and its split of traffic to the three 
airports. The highly competitive situation within the industry assures 
that the individual airlines will continue to test the extension of markets 
to other airports in a hub. However, expansion of service will be 
accomplished in increments that can be supported economically and 
be in line with local airport planning objectives. Setting segment load 
factors, as low as 20% in 1985, cannot be justified on an economic 
basis especially in light of the recent Civil Aeronautics Board ruling 
of a 55% load factor for rate making purposes. 

The "overflow" process for forecasting multiple hubs does not 
consider "passenger convenience" per se but uses a method which 
effectively simulates airlines' scheduling and is designed to match 
supply with demand. This scheduling method considers overall airline 
economic conditions as well as local economic conditions. 



From ATA Testimony 



VI 1-1 5 



March 3, 1972 



AVIATION FORECAST 

A most important factor in aviation systems planning is demand 
forecasting. Projections for fleet mix, noise, air quality, adequacy of 
ground access, are dependent upon the aviation forecast. There are 
differences between our forecast and the BASAR Forecast developed 
by the Systems Analysis Research Corporation. 

SARC projects 83 million total passengers for the Bay Area 
airports by 1985. We show approximately 29. 5 million total enplane- 
ments by 1985, or, about 59 million total passengers. 

A comparison of ATA and SARC long term forecasts of enplaned 
domestic passengers at San Francisco shows that although different base 
years were used, the average annual growth rates forecasted by the 
ATA and SARC through 1985 are reasonably compatible (ATA - 9.1% per year 
and 10. 2% per year for SARC). If the SARC forecast were changed to reflect 
the more current base data, it is highly probable that the two forecasts 
would not differ substantially in the absolute volume of traffic forecasted 
through 1985. As it is now, there is a time difference of four to five 
years between the ATA and SARC 1985 forecasts, so that the SARC 
forecast is not achieved by ATA until approximately 1989 or 1990. 
Likewise, the FAA forecast for 1970-1982 made in 1971 forecasted 
domestic traffic to increase at a growth rate of 9.17% per year 1970 
through 1982. However, just recently the FAA made tentative revisions 
to their long range forecast to a growth rate of approximately 8. 4% per 
year 1970 through 1982. This latter forecast will bring the FAA absolute 
volume of traffic forecasted in line with the ATA long range forecast. 

Airline traffic has been severely affected by the sharp downturn 
in the national economy. The persistent business recession which has 
accompanied this downturn is what caused us to review the total airline 
industry long range traffic forecasts. The current recession has 
produced a relatively high level of stagnation, unemployment and inflation. 
These factors dampened airline t raffic growth to the extent that future 
traffic will not attain the traffic levels forecasted. 

The revisions to the ATA airline industry forecasts are the results 
of evaluating the downward departure from the forecasted longer term 
trend. The revised forecasts show substantial differences in absolute 
traffic volumes from the forecasts we made initially. To reflect greater 
precision in the development of the ATA long range forecasts, more 
current base year data was used. The initial ATA industry forecasts 
were based on data prior to 1968. This base period has been changed to 
a 1970 base for domestic passenger enplanements. 

From ATA Testimony 



VI 1-16 



March 3, 1972 



The initial industry forecast used a formula for forecasting that 
related the rate of change of airline revenues to double the rate of 
change of personal consumption expenditures. The extension of the 
revenue trend into the future was made at a growth in personal con- 
sumption expenditures of 4. 4% annually. The original forecasts in 
the initial industry report assumed an increase in airline costs and 
resultant prices of one percentage point less than general prices 
annually. It is now clear that the original price assumption does not 
correspond to present reality. In the revised version, airline revenues 
have been converted to RPM's by adding one percent to the previous 
8. 8 percent rate for airline revenues. 

The estimated passenger enplanements for trunk and local 
service airlines in the continental U.S. was 150. 3 million for the twelve 
months ending September 30, 1970. If this increases by 9.8% annually, 
then for the calendar year 1975, the total domestic enplaned passengers 
would be 214. 4 million or 19. 4% below the original forecast of 266. 1 
million. This is an approximate two year slippage in the growth 
previously anticipated by 1975 in the national economy and subsequent 
airline traffic growth. In 1980 the industry forecast is 23. 5% lower 
than the previous forecast and in 1985, 25. 8% lower. The international 
passenger forecasts were not revised since the forecasts made originally 
are not out of line with present expectations. 

The methodology of the individual airport hub forecasts relates 
each airport's growth to the national total. Therefore, current revisions 
for the San Francisco hub airports are based on changes in the forecasted 
traffic of national totals. All other relationships and methods of 
determining traffic were left unchanged. 



From AlA Testimony 



VII-17 



March 3, 1972 

CAPITAL COST ANALYSIS OF AIRPORT ALTERNATIVES 



The significance of this report is its focus on capital improvements 
for alternate airport systems that do not assume maximizing the full 
capacity of the three existing Bay Area airports. 

Although the cost estimates are purported to be "order of magnitude" 
for comparison purposes, the discreetness of the numbers will qualify 
them for use in each individual airport master planning project. We hope 
that sufficient safeguards will be built into the report so that this will 
not happen. 

One of the basic considerations in studies of this type is capacity. 
In this context, capacity is a variable that must be weighed against 
permitting further increases in congestion or capital expenditure outlays 
to increase service capacity. 

The costs do not include environmental and ecological constraints. 
Costs associated with the removal of undesirable environmental or 
ecological factors are generally of considerable dollar impact. 

We note that portions of mass transit and highway systems have 
been allocated as airport costs. Ground access to airports is an 
integral part of the total regional transportation network and should be 
planned, constructed, maintained and financed as other segments of 
the system are. The airports should not be called upon to finance any 
such ground transportation. 

The report assumes that the capital improvements will be 
paid by public funds and does not take into account the complexities of 
financing airport improvements. 



From ATA Testimony 



$ 

VII-18 



March 3, 1972 



CONCLUSION 

The primary objective of this study should be the development 
of a regional aviation system plan compatible with established 
environmental and land use considerations and programmed to meet 
the best estimate of future aviation demand. 

This plan should utilize the full capacity of San Francisco 
International Airport, Oakland International Airport, and San Jose 
Municipal Airport, and incremental expansion should be geared to 
passenger demand, economic feasibility, and environmental con- 
siderations while planning for alternate airport locations, once 
total capacity of the existing sj^stem is attained. 

The airlines have and are still investing millions of dollars in 
improvements at San Francisco, Oakland, and San Jose to up-grade 
service levels at these airports. We believe that our services provide 
a decided benefit to the community. In developing a plan for the 
Bay Area, we trust that all factors will be carefully evaluated including 
the value of these three airports to the local residents and to the 
airport users. 



From ATA Testimony 



VI 1-1 9 



RECEIVED 

JUL 10 1972 



SAN FRANCISCO BAY CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION 
30 Van Ness Avenue, San Francisco 94102 557-3686 



ASSOCIATION Or 
BAY AREA GOVERNMENTS 



June 23, 1972 



TO: 
FROM: 



All Commissioners and Alternates 
Joseph E. Bodovitz, Executive Director 



SUBJECT : 



REGIONAL AIRPORT PLAN PROPOSED BY ABAG AIRPORT STUDY COMMITTEE 



(For Commission consideration on July 6) 



Introduction. On the Commission' s July 6 agenda will be a report 
on the final recommendations of ABAG's Regional Airport Systems Study 
Committee (RASSC), which has been headed by Supervisor (and BCDC Commissioner) 
Warren Boggess of Contra Costa County. A draft of the RASSC s proposed plan 
is scheduled for distribution during the week of July 3 and public hearings 
will be held this summer on the proposed plan. The purpose of this memorandum 
is to explain the staff's analysis of the proposed plan and to recommend 
the points that the staff believes should be made in a statement on behalf of 
the Commission at the public hearings. 

Summary of Plan. The airport study committee has conducted a thorough 
study of the many factors that bear on airport planning — limits on airspace, 
population growth, environmental considerations, ground access to airports, 
etc. In summary, the recommended plan would concentrate future aviation 
growth at existing airports, with the use of Travis Air Force Base in Solano 
County for some civilian airport purposes. The only Bay filling recommended 
in the plan is the construction of an additional runway at the Oakland 
International Airport to serve the number of passengers expected in 1985; this 
fill would require some 200 acres of the Bay. 

Staff Discussion. Members of the BCDC planning staff have worked closely 
with the airport study committee, and have made the following points in dis- 
cussions at committee meetings: 

1. Under the law, airports are one of the purposes for which Bay filling 
is justified, if_ the Commission finds that there is no alternative upland site, 
that the filling is the minimum necessary to achieve the purpose, and that the 
fill is designed so as to minimize harmful effects on the Bay. Under the law, 
the burden of proof is on the applicant. 

2. The staff believes that projections of the numbers of airline passengers 
to be served by Bay Area airports should be based upon commonly-accepted 
regional population projections. Such population projections would in turn 

be based on an adopted urban growth policy for the Bay Area. RASSC originally 
estimated the 1985 passenger levels at 83 million, but on the basis of State 
Department of Finance provisional projections, lowered the estimate to 72 million 
passengers (the present level is around 20 million passengers). This reinforces 
the need for common agreement on such projections related to adopted regional 
growth policies. The Association of Bay Area Governments has proposed to work 
toward developing both regional population projections and a regional urban 
growth policy in its 1972-73 planning program. Until such projections and 



f 

VII-20 



policies have been agreed upon, the staff believes it would be unwise to make 
irrevocable commitments to airport expansion that would require extensive Bay 
fill. Rather, provisions should be made in any RASSC recommendations for the 
review of passenger projections and airport expansion proposals in relation 
to the future projections and urban growth policy. 

3. Much Bay Area aviation consists of flights in the "California corrido 
between the Bay Area and Southern California. One alternative is to concen- 
trate this traffic at existing airports, which could require Bay fill. Another 
is to disperse these flights among other and smaller Bay Area airports such 

as Hamilton Air Force Base; there might be considerable opposition to this 
second alternative from the communities that would be receiving the new flight 
A third alternative worth considering is the possibility in the long-run of 
building high-speed rail transport to Southern California. 

4. While nobody can minimize the unpleasantness of aircraft noise, this 
alone should not, the staff believes, constitute a reason to fill the Bay. 
Future improvements in the technology of aircraft engines should be the means 
of solving the noise problem. But Bay filling to solve a temporary problem 
will reduce the surface area of the Bay permanently. 

5. The recommended airport plan does not automatically constitute an 
application for fill at the Oakland airport. Oakland airport officials state 
that if the proposed plan is approved, they would begin detailed environmental 
studies, perhaps requiring several years. It is important to emphasize that 
the recommended plan calls for the new runway at Oakland not to be built at 
once but to be in service for the anticipated level of passengers expected in 
1985. Even to meet the level of service proposed in the plan, construction of 
the runway would not have to begin for several years. 

Staff Recommendation. The staff recommends that these points be adopted 
as a general policy statement by the Commission for presentation at one of the 
forthcoming public hearings on the airport plan. 



From BCDC, p. 2 



VI 1-21 



SAVE SAN FRANCISCO BAY ASSOCIATION 



January, 1972 

Save San Francisco Bay Association 
P.O. Box 925, Berkeley, Ca. 9^701 

URGENT 1 URGENT ! 

ABAG has been studying plans for possible future expansion of 
airport facilities. Some of the alternatives for new airports 
or expansion of existing facilities include Bay fill - as much 
as 1500 acres j an area larger than Golden Gate park! 

A public hearing in San Francisco on February 3 , 1972 at 
9:30 a.m. in Room H9h of the State Building {U55 Golden Gate 
Ave.) will allow citizens to show, by attendance, their concern 
about the desirability of great airport expansion within the 
fragile environmental area of the Bay Basin. 

A written statement of your opinion can also be sent to: 
Airport Study, ABAG, Claremont Hotel, Berkeley, Ca. 9^705. 



April, 1972 

To: Members 

This is to alert you to the importance of a decision 
which the airport committee of the Association of Bay 
Area Governments will be making in the next few weeks 
on future expansion of Bay Area airports. 

Some of the alternatives being considered require as much 
as two square miles of new Bay fill. Other alternatives 
which are feasible do not require any Bay fill. Before 
the present Bay Area airports reach their capacities, 
(10 - 20 years), the use of Travis AFB as a new regional 
facility should be more thoroughly explored. 

Expressing your opinion now is important since letters 
and telegrams are being tabulated. One of the categories 
is opposition to Bay fill. 

Address: Mr. Warren Boggess 

Execut i ve Commi ttec, ABAG 
Hotel Claremont 
Berkeley, Ca. 9^705 



VII-22 



San Francisco Way Am Council 

348 WORLD TRADE CENTER • SAN FRANCISCO 94111 • TELEPHONE (415)981-6405 



January 10, 1972 



Regional Airport Systems Study Committee 
Association of Bay Area Governments 
Hotel Clarement 
Berkeley, California 94705 

Gentlemen: 

The San Francisco Bay Area Council is a private, non-profit or- 
ganization dedicated to the civic, economic and environmental 
enhancement of the nine-county Bay region. One of the principal 
areas of interest of the Council is the promotion of a comprehen- 
sive regional transportation system including a suitable airport 
and aviation network for our area. 

We have been following closely the deliberations of your Committee 
and we wish to thank you for allowing the Council to occupy an 
ex-officio position in the person of Mr. C. F. Gregg, Public Affairs 
Director of the West Coast, Pan American World Airways, and a member 
of our Transportation Committee. 

Secondly, we wish to commend the Committee for the fine work it has 
performed thus far in this study. 

The Bay Area Council has formed a special Task Force to review the 
goals, policies, issue papers, technical reports and decision cri- 
teria of RASSC. As an initial step, the Task Force has reviewed 
the statement of goals and policies published in your "Regional 
Airport Systems Study's Report to the General Assembly of the As- 
sociation of Bay Area Governments" and in your publication "Aviation 
Future." These statements of policies dealing with "Aviation Trans- 
portation and Service; Economic Vitality; and Environmental Quality" 
are necessarily very broad. Since they are, any option, considera- 
tion or decision dealing with airports and aviation can be accom- 
modated, depending -upon the subjective evaluations and priorities 
of the decision makers. We are currently looking at the various 
"issue papers" and technical reports prepared by and for RASSC. We 
also await the statements of "decision criteria" your Committee will 
be considering. We anticipate that these will provide more tangible 
basis for further study and comment. 



The Bay Area Council, established in 1945, is supported mainly by business with partici- 
pation from government, labor and education and is dedicated to building a better Bay 
Area through economic, environmental and civic development, and regional cooperation. 



VII-23 



Regional Airport Systems Study Committee 
Association of Bay Area Governments 
January 10, 1972 
Page Two 

The following brief general statement is intended to demonstrate our interest in 
this matter and to serve as an introduction to a more definitive statement to be 
submitted at a later date. 

1. Good planning must acknowledge tha interrelationship among all elements 
of land use. VJe do not believe that airport planning can be divorced from total 
transportation planning; nor that transportation planning can be independent of 
over-all land use policy and planning. Therefore, while we fully acknowledge the 
great importance of regional airport planning, we believe your Committee's mandate 
is too restricted. We suggest to you that: (a) the proper function of your Commit- 
tee is to take a realistic view of the need for expanding aviation facilities in the 
Bay Area, (b) the basic questions of land use policy and of population and develop- 
ment controls should not be decided by your Committee, (c) the results of your Com- 
mittee's work should not be adopted until they have been integrated with other 
elements of the ABAG Regional Plan, and especially with a comprehensive transporta- 
tion plan, and, (d) the results of your work should be reviewed by the Metrepalitan 
Transportation Commission, the establishment of which the Council supported. 

2. An effective method of implementation is essential to the ultimate success 
of a comprehensive planning program. The RASSC Plan, like any other, will be re- 
latively useless unless a mechanism is established for its implementation. We 
believe there must be not only coordination among aviation and airport facilities 
in our region but also coordination with other transportation and land use de- 
cisions. Again, we suggest KTC as a possible implementation vehicle. 

3. So far we have found no evidence to dispute that first priority should be 
given to maximum feasible development of the existing San Francisco, Oakland and 
San Jose airports. The Council advocates strongly that these existing centers 

of aviation activity, of extensive public and private investment, and of intensive 
employment be protected, enhanced and developed to their optimum utilization. We 
know, of course, that the expansion of these airports is likely to raise questions 
about environmental impact. But, we are certain that these environmental considera- 
tions can be reconciled with regional transportation service and safety require- 
ments and with economic considerations. 

We appreciate the opportunity to deliver this statement to you. As indicated pre- 
viously, it is intended to serve primarily as an introduction to a more detailed 
review we are currently engaged in. We request that you accept and consider our 
subsequent statement, even though it will be delivered to you after the public 
hearings have been adjourned. 

Sincerely, 

(Original signed by) 

A. W. Clausen 
Chairman 

AWC:mvn _ — . — _ 

* From S.F. Bay Area Council, p. 2 



VI 1-24 



The following Sacramento County Resolution No. 72-706 is included under 
interagency coordination because it is a significant inter-regional coor- 
dination question and will require continuing review. Although testimony 
was heard from Sacramento during the plan preparation hearings as well as 
at the public hearings on the recommended Plan held by the Executive 
Committee, it was the conclusion of the RASSC Committee, and approved by 
the Executive Committee, that adoption of the Plan should not be delayed 
in view of the lead time involved in developing significant air traffic 
at Travis and, thus, the opportunity to review the approved Plan in the 
light of data and policy developed by the Sacramento study now being under- 
taken by the Sacramento Regional Area Planning Commission. 



RESOLUTION NO. 72-706 

RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE 
COUNTY °F SACRAMENTO REQUESTING FURTHER CONSIDERA- 
TION BY THE ASSOCIATION OF BAY AREA GOVERNMENTS 
OF THE AIRPORT SYSTEMS STUDY 



WHEREAS, the Regional Airport Systems Study Committee (RASSC) of the 
Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) has conducted an airport systems study 
and made its recommendation on June 22, 1972 to the ABAG Executive Committee 
concerning all aviation needs, area resources, and public interests in the San 
Francisco Bay Area; and 

WHEREAS, among other things, the recommendations are that no new airports 
be constructed; that most of the Bay Area traffic be accommodated at San Francisco 
International, Oakland International and San Jose Municipal Airports; that by 1985 
approximately one million passengers be accommodated at Napa or Hamilton, and that 
Travis Air Force Base be converted to a joint military-civil use airport to accommo- 
date up to six million civilian passengers per year; and 

WHEREAS, that study, as originally conceived, centered upon the utilization 
of the three existing air carrier airports serving the immediate San Francisco Bay 
Area; and 

WHEREAS, when it was subsequently determined that the existing airport 
facilities could not be expanded to accommodate the projected demand, and further 
that a fourth air carrier airport was needed, the study was enlarged in scope to 
include the investigation of sites outside of the immediate Bay Area; and 

WHEREAS, the expansion of the study area and recommendation to utilize 
Travis Air Force Base as the fourth air carrier airport alters the import of this 
study from one of ABAG interest only to one of impact and interest to the entire 
Northern California area; and 

WHEREAS, the County of Sacramento is currently in the process of updating 
its Master Plan for Metropolitan Airport and, in so doing, has approved the en- 
gagement of R. Dixon Speas Associates to investigate the various approaches RASSC 
had initially under consideration and to analyze the impact on Sacramento 
Metropolitan Airport demand statistics; and 

WHEREAS, the preliminary findings of R. Dixon Speas Associates indicate 
that the utilization of Travis as a fourth air carrier airport would have a definite 
impact upon the entire Sacramento Valley and surrounding area; and 



VII - 25 



WHEREAS, Sacramento, as the State Capitol , plays a vital and significant 
role in the political and economic affairs of the entire State of California and 
the Nation, and the Sacramento Valley and surrounding area constitute an important 
population center for which adequate air transportation is extremely important; and 

WHEREAS, the California State Business and Transportation Agency has recentl 
received a $600,000 appropriation to conduct a multi-modal study to evaluate and 
find solutions to the increasing volume of traffic between Sacramento, Stockton 
and San Francisco, and the results of that study could have a significant impact 
upon the designation of the airport to serve as the fourth major air carrier 
facility for the combined Sacramento Valley and Bay Area regions; and 

WHEREAS, Sacramento County has previously advised ABAG of its interest 
in the airport systems study by the appearance of its Director of Airports at 
the May 19, 1972 meeting of RASSC; and 

WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of the County of Sacramento has asked 
the Sacramento Regional Area Planning Commission to amend a pending planning 
study with the Federal Aviation Administration to include an in-depth analysis 
of the air traffic demand for the Bay Area and the Sacramento air trade area 
using Sacramento Metropolitan Airport as the fourth major air carrier airport 
for these areas and has further indicated its willingness to finance the sponsor's 
portion of such an expanded systems study; and 

WHEREAS, the systems study contemplated by the Sacramento County Board 
of Supervisors and the Sacramento Regional Area Planning Commission would be 
complementary to the RASSC study, would be fully integrated with Federal, State 
and local agencies and with Air Transportation Association, and would consider 
another alternate that could more adequately and efficiently serve the population 
centers of the entire Northern California area; 

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of the County 
of Sacramento that the County hereby officially requests the Association of Bay 
Area Governments to defer any decision or action with respect to the designation 
or utilization of Travis Air Force Base as the fourth air carrier airport for the 
Bay Area until such time as the systems study to be undertaken by the Sacramento 
Regional Area Planning Commission is completed and made available - to ABAG and the 
Federal Aviation Administration for consideration; and 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the County of Sacramento requests the opportunr 
to present testimony and evidence concerning this Resolution at the August 17, 1 9 ■ 
meeting of the Executive Committee of the Association of Bay Area Governments. 

On a motion by Supervisor Gualco, seconded by Supervisor Sheedy, the fore- 
going Resolution was passed and adopted by the Board of Supervisors of the County 
of Sacramento, State of California, this 19th day of July, 1972, by the following 
vote, to wit: 

AYES: Supervisors, GUALCO, KLOSS, PHELAN, SHEEDY, MELARKEY 
NOES: Supervisors, NONE 
ABSENT: Supervisors, NONE 



/s/ Patrick E. Melarkey 
Chairman of the Board of Superv i sors 
of Sacramento County, California 



VII - 26 



CHAPTER VIII 
IMPLEMENTATION 



Implementation is the phase at which many plans come to a halt. It was 
an issue raised often during the public hearings and by the ex-officio 
members of the Study Committee. Many of these questions were directed 
to the point that ABAG, as a voluntary association, has very limited 
effect in requiring compliance with its plans. 

The Committee was concerned that an adequate definition of its plan 
bases be available. This they felt to be necessary for the ABAG project 
review function. 

The Committee was also concerned about the lack of procedures for dealing 
with some of the issues they had worked with, such as seat factors, noise 
standards, peak-hour scheduling, route awards, and airport service points. 

Project Review 

The first step in the process of implementation was to clearly establish 
this aviation plan as an approved special plan element in the Association's 
Regional Plan . That would form the basis for the Association's comments 
under its federal project review authority stipulated by the Office of 
Management and Budget's Circular A-95.* This authority extends to 101 
different types of federally assisted projects, ranging from projects 
with FHA home mortgage insurance to airport development projects. 

Such a review gives the Association an opportunity to identify the 
regional effects of various projects with respect to all elements of its 
Regional Plan , and to coordinate the removal of conflicts that may appear. 

With this authority in mind, the Committee carefully described the 
decision criteria that it used in developing its plan so that in later 
reviews of projects the intent of the Committee would be clearly interpreted. 

The Forum 

The lack of a demonstrated process that brings together the numerous 
organizations and agencies that deal with aviation issues led the Committee 
to recommend the creation of a forum. The purpose of this forum is to 
bring together the airlines, airport owners, regulatory agencies, Federal 



* Excerpts from the Association's report, Project Review Policies and 
Procedures , May 1971, are included in the back of this chapter. 



VIII-1 



Aviation Administration, and Bay Area communities to regularly discuss 
the unresolved issues unearthed by the Committee. These issues 
included: 

- Where can service points for new route awards best 
fulfill the plan? 

- How can seat factors be improved to increase utilization 
of airports? 

- Would a redes ignati on of airline service points better 
utilize existing capacity? 

- Can improved noise abatement procedures be devised for 
the entire Bay Area? 

Because of the lack of experience with such a forum, the Study Committee 
has suggested that it begin the process and, with time, evolve the 
procedures and composition for the forum. The question of including 
other affected local agencies into the process will be a matter of 
initial importance. 

Monitoring 

Because this plan element depends upon many projections and assumptions, 
the continual monitoring by ABAG staff is particularly important. In 
this way, new findings that are inconsistent with the Committee's facts 
or projections can be checked to see how they could change the original 
decisions. The process for change would focus on amendments to the 
special plan element. 



VIII-2 



ASSOCIATION OF BAY AREA GOVERNMENTS 
PROJECT REVIEW POLICIES AND PROCEDURES 
EXCERPTS 



The activities for which the Association has a review responsibility 
are as follows: 

1. The grant-in-aid programs covered in Appendix II of these 
excerpts (attached). 

2. Federal Housing Administration housing programs on the 
list in Appendix II (attached), 

- Subdivisions of 50 lots or more 

- Multiple family dwellings of 100 units or more 

- Mobile Home Parks of 100 units or more 

- College housing for 200 students or more 

3. All Federal development projects undertaken by departments 
of the federal government including acquisition, use and 
disposal of federal property. 

4. All Federal programs providing assistance to state, regional, 
and local projects and activities that are planned on a 
multi jurisdictional basis. 

The purpose of the project review program is to: 

1. Implement regional policies, plans, and programs. 

2. Establish a mechanism to insure that all planning activities 
of local, state, and federal agencies relate to a coordinated 
and unified regional planning program. 

3. Emphasize the intergovernmental relations aspects of federally 
assisted and federal development projects. 

4. Establish a process through which the regional significance, 
including environmental significance, of a proposed project 
can be evaluated. 

5. Establish by means of early contact between agencies proposing 
projects and agencies affected by those projects, an expedi- 
tious method of review and coordination. 



VI 1 1-3 



Formal Review and Comment by ABAG 



If the Clearinghouse declares interest in formally reviewing the project, 
this review will be conducted after the project is fully developed but 
30 days prior to the submission of the final application to the granting 
agency. 

During the development stages of the proposed project the Clearinghouse 
staff may call a pre-appl ication conference as deemed necessary, involving 
the following parties: 

a. ABAG staff 

b. Local or regional agencies that have expressed an interest 
in the project 

c. State agencies that have expressed an interest in the project 

d. Federal agency involved in the project 

Federal Development Projects 

The Association is responsible for maintaining coordination between 
Federal agencies undertaking direct development projects and regional and 
local agencies affected by such projects. It is the object of such 
coordination to assure maximum feasible consistency of Federal developments 
with regional and local plans and programs. 

Direct Federal development projects include the planning and construction 
of Federal buildings and installations and other Federal public works, or 
developments for the acquisition , use ; and disposal of Federal land and 
real property. Federal agencies which undertake such direct development 
projects include, but are not limited to, the Department of Defense, 
General Services Agency, Bureau of Reclamation, Federal Power Commission 
(review of permits), National Park Services etc. 

The Association shall utilize its Clearinghouse project notification and 

review procedures to: 

a. Notify regional and local agencies at the earliest 
practicable stage of direct Federal projects or of plans 
for the development of such projects. 

b. Advise Federal agencies of the consistency or inconsistency 
of such projects or development plans with regional or local 
agency plans or programs. 

c. Provide regional and local agencies authorized to develop and 
enforce environmental standards with adequate opportunity to 
review such Federal plans and projects pursuant to section 102 
(2), (c) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. 

d. Provide Federal agencies with information on the possible impact 
on the environment of proposed Federal development projects. 



VI 1 1-4 



Project Review Policy and Criteria 



The following criteria and policies shall be utilized in the review of a 
proposed project. The review of proposed projects by the Association is, 
in part- a service to agencies in the Bay Area in identifying issues and 
assisting in their resolution. 

Coordination of the regional planning policies and objectives of the 
Association with geographically larger state activities, geographically 
smaller local activities and the activities of specialized planning and 
regulatory agencies in ^he Bay Area is a positive goal. The specialized 
technical resources of such agencies will be utilized to the maximum 
extent possible by the Association to avoid duplication of effort and 
overlap, and their policy proposals will be given appropriate consideration. 

In its review of project applications, the Association shall consider and 
take account of all pertinent findings and decisions of all Bay Area 
specialized planning or regulatory agencies and Bay Area general purpose 
units of local government whose comment upon or approval of the project 
is required by law. The Association may request comments from such 
organizations when it believes them to be pertinent in the event they 
are not required by law. 

The Executive Director shall cause project applications to be referred for 
consideration and recommendation to appropriate advisory and/or technical 
committees of the Association when he believes that to be desirable and 
practical within the applicable time limits and the intent of this policy. 

The following policy and criteria shall govern the Association's Project 
Review Program: 

1. ABAG Regional Plan 1970:90 

All proposed projects shall be reviewed as they relate to the fulfillment 
of the Regional Plan 1970:90, as approved by ABAG July 30, 1970. The 
goals and policies as articulated in the Regional Plan are summarized 
below: 

To protect and enhance the quality of life in the San Francisco 
Bay Region. The city-centered concept for regional growth, 
development and environmental quality shall be the focal point 
of the Association's project review program. 

2. Special Element Plans 

As special element plans are developed and policy is established, they 
shall become an integral part of the Association's review. 

3. Other Agency Plans and Policies 

Where a functionally specialized planning or regulatory agency exists and 
its plans and policies are found to be consistent with ABAG policies, 
said plans shall be utilized as the criteria for the review of projects 
which relate directly to those functionally specialized plans. 



V 1 1 1 - 5 



Environmental Impact 



Projects shall be reviewed as they may have an impact on the environment 
of the Bay Area. Consideration shall be given, but not limited to, the 
following factors as spelled out in Section 102 (2), (c) of the Environ- 
mental Policy Act of 1969: 

a. the environmental impact of the proposed project; 

b. any adverse environmental effects which cannot be avoided 
should the proposed project be implemented; 

c. alternatives to the proposed project; 

d. the relationship between local short term uses of man's 
environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term 
productivity; 

e. any irreversible and irretrievable committments of resources 
which would be involved in the proposed project or action 
should it be implemented; 

f. the extent to which a project will have an adverse effect on 
the Bay Area environment. Specialized planning and regulatory 
agencies shall be utilized to the extent necessary in developing 
comments relative to the potential adverse environmental impact 
of a proposed project. 

Coordination of Planning Activities in the Bay Area 

The Association has the responsibility to provide for a coordinative 
planning program which relates all areawide planning by specialized 
agencies to a Comprehensive Regional Plan. The following policy and 
criteria shall be utilized to the extent necessary in determining the 
extent to which a project contributes to the fulfillment of the 
Association's program for a unified and Comprehensive Regional Plan. 

a. Insure that planning activities are not duplicative of 
existing programs; 

b. Insure that common or consistent planning jurisdictions are 
established on the basis of the nine county Bay Area; 

c. Insure that common and consistent data bases are utilized in 
the development of specialized plans; 

d. Provide evidence of explicit organizational or procedural 
arrangements for a continuing monitoring process between 
ABAG and the project proponents; 

e. Where it is found to enhance the quality of proposed planning 
activities, and the comprehensive scope of such activities, 
applicants shall provide for joint funding of a project with 
the Association's Regional Planning Program. 



VIII-6 



PROJECT REVIEW POLICIES AND PROCEDURES 



APPENDIX II 

Federal Assistance Programs Covered Under 
the Project Review Program 



Department of Agriculture 

Comprehensive Areawide Water and Sewer Planning Grants 
Irrigation, Drainage and Other Soil and Conservation Loans 
Recreation Association Loans 

Water and Waste Disposal Systems for Rural Communities 
Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Loans 
Resource Conservation and Development 
Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention 

Department of Commerce 

Economic Development - Grants and Loans for Public Works and Development 
Facilities 

Economic Development - Planning Assistance 
Economic Development - Technical Assistance 

Department of Defense - Army Corps of Engineers 

Beach Erosion Control 

Small Flood Control Projects 

Small Navigation Projects 

Snagging and Clearing for Flood Control 

Environmental Protection Agency 

Air Pollution Control Program Grants (Planning Only) 
Solid Wastes Demonstration Grants 
Solid Wastes Planning Grants 

Construction Grants for Wastewater Treatment Works 

Water Pollution Control - Comprehensive Basin Planning Grants 

Water Pollution Control - Sta + e and Interstate Program Grants 

Department of Health, Education and Welfare 

Comprehensive Health Planning - Areawide Grants 

Health Facilities Construction - Diagnostic and Treatment Centers 

Health Facilities Construction - Hospitals and Public Health Centers 

Health Facilities Construction - Long-Term Care Facilities 

Health Facilities Construction - Rehabilitation Facilities 



VIII-7 



Mental Health - Community Assistance Grants for Narcotic Addiction 

(Construction Only) 
Mental Health - Construction of Community Mental Health Centers 
Regional Medical Programs - Operational and Planning Grants (Planning 

and Construction Only) 
Health Professions Facilities Construction 
Medical Library Assistance - Regional Medical Libraries 
Schools of Nursing - Facilities Construction 
Construction of Public Libraries 

Higher Education Academic Facilities - State Comprehensive Planning 
Higher Education Academic Facilities Construction - Interest Subsidization 
Higher Education Academic Facilities Construction - Public and Private 

Colleges and Universities 
Higher Education Academic Facilities Construction - Public Community 

Colleges and Technical Institutes 
School Assistance in Federally Affected Areas - Construction 
Supplementary Education Centers and Services (Construction Only) 
Vocational Education - Basic Grants to States (Construction Only) 
Juvenile Delinquency Planning, Prevention, and Rehabilitation (Planning 

and Construction Only) 
Mental Retardation Community Facilities Construction 
Vocational Rehabilitation Services - Basic Support (Construction Only) 



Department of Housing and Urban Development 



College Housing Debt Service 
College Housing Direct Loans 
Interest Subsidy - Homes for 
Interest Reduction Payments 

Income Families 
Mortgage Insurance 
Mortgage Insurance 
Mortgage Insurance 
Mortgage Insurance 
Mortgage Insurance 
Mortgage Insurance 



Lower Income Families 

■ Rental and Cooperative Housing for Lower 



Mortgage Insurance 
Mortgage Insurance 
Mortgage Insurance 
Mortgage Insurance 
Mortgage Insurance 
Mortgage Insurance 
Mortgage Insurance 
Below Market 



Construction or Rehabilitation of Condominium Projects 
Development of Sales Type Cooperative Projects 
Homes 

for Certified Veterans 
for Disaster Victims 
for Low and Moderate Income Families 
in Outlying Areas 
in Urban Renewal Areas 

- Investor Sponsored Cooperative Housing 

- Land Mobile Home Courts 

- Rental Housing 

- Rental Housing for Low and Moderate Income Families 

- Rental Housing for Low and Moderate Income Families 
Interest Rate 



Homes 
Homes 
Homes 
Homes 
Homes 



Mortgage Insurance - Rental Housing for Low and Moderate Income Families, 

Market Interest Rate 

Mortgage Insurance - Rental Housing for the Elderly 

Mortgage Insurance - Rental Housing in Urban Renewal Areas 



VIII-8 



Public Housing - Acquisition, Construction, Rehabilitation (New Constructs 
Only) 

Rent Supplements - Rental Housing for Low Income Families 

f%S]i-& Wa^er r and Sewer Faci 1 i ti es -;->%!^|l3h , Rehabilitation (New Consu, 

Comprehensive Planning Assistance 

ifii^or^c, Preservation Grants ow income Families 

fffe*/, .-Communities - Loan Guarantees 

ff^ikf Communities - Supplementary Grants 

iQpen Space Land Acquisition and Development Grants 

Public Facility Loans 

Urban Systems Engineering Demonstration Grants 
ffttocjel .Cities Supplementary Grants 
Community Renewal Planning Grants 
L NjE^$bborhood Development 
MiVhP Renewal Projects 

Community Renewal Planning Grants 
Department of the ; Interior 

Urban Renewal Project..! 

Outdoor Recreation - Financial Assistance 

[§^td ) OQi(}.. .Recreation Planning - Financial Assistance 

Trrfgation and Drainage Systems Loans 

f^ijB^^jRec-lamation Projects,- j 5 j Assistance 

4^|^|i ^Preservation Fi nancial Assi stance 

Irrigation and Drainage Systems Loans 
■Oep-artrnent of Justice 

Historic Preservation 

Law Enforcement Assistance - Comprehensive Planning 

Law Enforcement Assistance - Discretionary Grants 

! Lw~Enforcement Assistance - Improving and Strengthening Law Enforcement 

aw Enforcement Assistance - Com&rehensi ve Planning 
'epartment of Labor 

Law Enforcement Assistance - Improving and Strengthening Law Enforcement 
Cooperative Area Manpower Planning System 

Department of Labor 
Department of Transportation 

Cooperative Area. Manpower Planning System 
Airport Development Aid Program 
Forest Highways 

ttfghway Beautification - Landscaping and Scenic Enhancement 
Highway Planning and Construction 
^30^ way Planning and Research Studies 
jPj^Wic Lands Highways 

Hf|^\||c Operations Program to Increase Capacity and Safety (Construction 
Highway) 

tyrfcan^ass Transportation Capital Improvement Grants (Planning and 
-[Yaff^onstruction Only) am to e Capacity and Saf 

UrbanMass Transportation Capital Improvement Loans (Planning and 
Urban Q98§i rU!C tioj) Only) 

Urban tyass Transportation Technical Studies Grants (Planning and 
Urban instruction Only) 

Construction Only) 
Urban Mass Transportation Technical Studies Grants (Planning and 
Construction Onlv) 



5 



VI 1 1 -9 



National Science Foundation 



Intergovernmental Science Programs 
Office of Economic Opportunity 

Community Action Operations (Excluding Administration, Research, Training 
and Technical Assistance and Evaluation) 

Water Resources Council 

Water Resources Planning 



VIII-10 



APPENDIX A 



DISTRIBUTION OF 1975, 1980, AND 1985 GENERAL AVIATION 
DEMAND TO BAY AREA AIRPORTS 



GENERAL AVIATION ALLOCATION* 



In response to the Committee's request , this estimate of how the 
1975 , 1980, and 1985 projected general aviation demand might be 
distributed to the airports in the Bay Area has been made.** 

In making these estimates, the following has been assumed: 

1. SFO will have a limited number of general aviation aircraft 
based there and only about 30,000 annual g/a operations. 

2. Oakland north Airport will have g/a activity, with the 
exception of certain business jet departures for noise 
abatement purposes. 

3. Allowing for itinerant operations, a based aircraft would 
represent 800 annual operations in 1975, 900 in 1980, and 
1,000 in 1985. 

4. All of the privately owned airports are available through 

1975; after that, only those in the rural areas will remain available 

5. The general aviation ownership was revised downward based 
on the new Dept. of Finance population projections. 

6. As airline activity increases at SJC, general aviation 
traffic will decrease and in later time periods so will 
based aircraft. 

The details of the ownership/airport allocation are shown in Tables I 
through 3 (1975, 1980, and 1985), and the process of estimating traffic 
activity and redistributing traffic is shown in Tables 4 through 6 
(1975, 1980, and 1985). 

Using this process, the following have been identified: 
Key Exi sti ng General A v i^l9. n _AiT£.° r J : i. 

These represent vital existing publicly owned airports within the urbanized core: 

Oakland North Reid-Hil Iview 

Hayward SJC (until 1980) 

Buchanan Field Napa County 

Livermore Palo Alto 

San Carlos Half Moon Bay 
Gnoss Field 



* Prepared for the Regional Airport Systems Study Committee April 26, 1972 
** These estimates were adopted as a part of the Plan. 

A-1 



These airports will need to serve 500 or more based aircraft each and, 
constrained by runway capacity, most will need to divert their training 
activity to outlying airports beginning in 1975. 



Private Airports 

When urbanization occurs, privately owned airports are generally unable 
to generate sufficient revenues from the large land areas that are required 
to be profitable. It is suggested that the following privately owned 
airports will be affected: 

now until 1975 : all private airports remain available 

1975 to 1980: the following airports will probably be phased 
out unless public agencies take action: 

Petal uma Sky Ranch Vacaville 
Fremont Sky Sailing Morgan Hill 

Fremont Airport Smith Ranch 

Antioch 

1980 to 1985 : Sonoma Skypark 

To accommodate the based aircraft requirements projected for the Region, 
the following new publicly owned general aviation airports will need to 
be developed: 





now 


until 


1975 




1975 to 


1980 




1980 to 


1985 




Total 






based 


total 




based 


total 




based 


total 


based total 




no. 


a/c 


op's 


no 


. a/c 


op 1 s 


no. 


a/c 


op's 


no 


. a/c op's 


County 






(000) 






(000) 






(000) 




(000) 


Alameda 








1 


250 


300 








1 


250 300 


Contra Costa 








1 


170 


200 


1 


120 


200 


2 


490 400 


Marin 
























Napa 














1 


20 


70 


1 


20 70 


San Francisco 
























San Mateo 








1 


100 


200 








1 


100 200 


Santa Clara 


1* 


460 


400 


1 


500 


400 


2 


950 


900 


4 


1910 1700 


Solano 














1 


60 


150 


1 


60 150 


Sonoma 








1 


140 


200 








1 


140 200 


TOTAL 


1 


460 


400 


5 


1160 


1300 


5 


1150 


1320 


11 


2970 3020 



South County Airport, which is presently under construction 



A-2 



Additional Runway Capacity Required 



Besides new airports to accommodate based aircraft, the following runway 
capacity will be required outside of the Region to provide for training 
flight operations diverted from the key Bay Area airports: 

Airports Outside 1975 Diverted 1980 Diverted 1985 Diverted 
the Region Flights (000) Flights (000) Flights (000) 



Hoi lister 5 20 100 

Watsonville 5 20 50 

Salinas 10 50 

Tracy 5 20 100 

TOTAL 15 70 300 



''Reliever" Training Runways in the Region 

Three of this type of airport will be required by 1985. Each would have 
a high proportion (say 80%) of ''touch and go" type operations and would 
need an annual capacity of 100,000 to 200,000 operations. 

Summary 

Despite the constraint due to the lack of airport facilities in certain 
parts of the Region, the projected general aviation demand will still place 
a heavy load upon the existing publicly owned, general aviation airports. 

We will need to salvage or replace with publicly owned airports some key 
privately owned general aviation airports. 

There is today, and will increasingly be, a very substantial interdependence 
of general aviation airports upon each other with respect to capacity for 
based aircraft and runway operations. 

This interdependence suggests the need for joint actions among public 
agencies in order to finance general aviation facilities. 

The need for separated airspace between general aviation and civilian 
airports requires funding support from the major airline airports to 
provide reliever general aviation airports as envisioned by the National 
Airport System Plan of the FAA. 

Substantial use will be made of some airports outside the Region. 



A-3 



OWNER LOCATION 



ALLOCATION OF 
GENERAL AVIATION 
AIRCRAFT TO AIRPORTS 



1975 



R PORTS 



(0 
T3 
CD 
E 
(0 

< 



en 
O 
O 



O 
O 



ro 









fD 




















O 


o 


ro 








u 


0) 










CO 


_j 


^ j 










fD 




O 


ro 




u 


s: 


ro 


c 


E 




c 




+- 


ro 


O 


£Z 


ro 


c 


c 




c 


(D 


i_ 


ro 


ro 


o 


o 


CO 


u_ 


CO 


to 


CO 


CO 



A I RCRAFT 
LOCAT I ON 

TOTAL 



A I ameda 



Li vermore 


190 


50 














30 








270 


Hayward 


330 











55 


40 


10 








435 


Fremont* 


30 














15 


25 








70 


Sky Sa i 1 i ng* 


20 














15 


25 








60 


uaK l ana iNorTn ; 


jZU 


RO 


u 


u 


1 UU 


~ir\ 
/U 


(J 


U 


U 


4oU 


Tota 1 s 


890 


1 00 






1 55 


80 


90 








1 j 1 5 


Contra Costa 






















Antioch* 





75 

















20 





95 


Buchanan 


40 


375 





10 


15 








20 





460 


Tota 1 s 


40 


450 





10 


15 








40 





555 


Mari n 






















Gnoss 








150 





15 











20 


185 


om i in Kancn 


u 


u 




u 


1 R 
1 J 


u 


u 


n 
u 


u 


RO 


Tota 1 s 








185 





30 











20 


235 


Napa 






















Annw i 

/ \ 1 1 V-J VV | II 


o 


o 


o 


1 5 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


1 5 


Ca 1 i Rtoaa 


o 


o 


o 


1 5 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


1 5 


Napa 





25 


25 


75 


5 








10 


20 


160 


Usibel 1 i* 











5 

















5 


Tota 1 s 





25 


25 


1 10 


5 








10 


20 


195 


San Francisco 
































San Mateo 






















Ha 1 f Moon 














10 


190 


20 








220 


San Carlos 














60 


290 


30 








380 


San Francisco 














20 


20 











40 


Tota 1 s 














90 


500 


50 








640 


Santa Clara 






















Palo Alto 


10 











15 


100 


350 








475 


Re i d-Hi 1 1 v i ew 


10 














25 


500 








535 


San Jose Mun. 


10 














15 


550 








575 


South County 




















460 








460 


Morgan Hi 1 1 * 




















100 








100 


Tota 1 s 


30 











15 


140 


960 








2 1 45 



Privately owned airport 

Privately owned with evidence that it might be closed 



A-4 



Chart 1 



OWNER LOCATION 



ALLOCATION OF 
GENERAL AVIATION 
AIRCRAFT TO AIRPORTS 
1975 



A I RPORTS 











o 












ta 






sc 




ro 








10 










i_ 








o 






u 


O 


ro 








o 








CD 








(0 








ro 


4- 


o 






TD 


ro 






i_ 


ro 




O 


ro 





!_ 






U_ 


:> 


ro 




E 


E 


+- 




ro 






4- 


ro 


O 


ro 


£Z 


i_ 




c 




c 




c 




o 


ro 


ro 


ro 


ro 


ro 


o 


O 


< 


o 




2 


CO 


CO 


CO 


CO 


CO 



AIRCRAFT 
LOCATION 

TOTAL 



So 1 ano 
























Nut Tree 
















% 








40 





40 


Rio Vista 







25 








% 








30 





55 


Vaca-Dixon* 

























5 





5 


Vacavi 1 le** 













5 











45 





50 


Maine Prai rie* 









n 

{J 













i n 


n 


i n 


Tremont 










i nacti ve 


1972- 










Tota 1 s 







25 





5 











130 





160 


Sonoma 
























Sonoma County 













10 














140 


150 


Cloverdale 




























25 


25 


Hea 1 dsburg 




























25 


25 


Peta 1 uma** 










10 


10 


10 











30 


60 


Santa Rosa Ai r 


C 


.0 





10 


5 














80 


95 


Codd i ngtown* 










•closed 1972— 










Sonoma Va 1 ley* 










10 


5 


10 











15 


40 


Sonoma Sky Park* 








10 


5 


10 











15 


30 


Sea Ranch* 




























10 


10 


Tota 1 s 










40 


35 


20 











340 


435 


Owner Location Totals 


960 


600 


250 


160 


330 


720 2100 


180 


380 


5,680 



** 



Privately owned airport 

Privately owned with evidence that it might be closed 



Chart 1 (continued) 



A-5 



A I RCRAFT 
LOCAT I ON 



| TOTAL 

o 

c 
O 

co 



ALAMEDA 



L i vermore 


250 


80 














40 








370 


Hayward 


380 











60 


50 


20 








510 


Oak 1 and 


390 


60 








150 


20 


10 








630 


New airport 
sub total 


100 














50 


100 








250 


1 120 


140 








210 


120 


170 








1760 



ALLOCATION OF 
GENERAL AVIATION 
AIRCRAFT TO AIRPORTS 



1980 



A I RPORTS 



OWNER LOCATION 















o 




















o 


o 


ro 




(0 












in 


<D 


i_ 




"O 


ro 












+- 


ro 


o 


CD 


s_ 


ro 








o 


ro 




c 


E 


+- 


+- 




ro 




c 




O 


ro 




c 


in 


i_ 


CL 


c 


ro 










O 


O 


ro 


ro 


re 








o 


< 


o 


O 


:> 


2 


co 


u_ 


co 


CO 


CO 



CONTRA COSTA 



Buchanan 


50 


480 





10 


20 








20 





580 


New a i rport 





150 

















20 





170 


sub total 


50 


630 





10 


20 








40 





750 



MAR I N 



NAPA 



Gnoss 








300 


10 


20 











10 


340 


sub total 








300 


10 


20 











10 


340 


Angw i n 











20 

















20 


Ca 1 i stoga 











20 

















20 


Napa 





30 


30 


120 


10 








20 


20 


230 


Us i be 1 1 i 











10 

















10 


sub total 





30 


30 


170 


10 








20 


20 


280 


*ANC 1 SCO 
































SAN MATEO 



Ha 1 f Moon 














10 


200 


30 








240 


San Carlos 














70 


300 


50 








420 


San Francisco 














10 


30 











40 


1 980 new a i rport 














10 


90 











100 


sub total 














100 


620 


80 








800 



Chart 2 



OWNER LOCATION 



ALLOCATION OF 
GENERAL AVIATION 
AIRCRAFT TO AIRPORT S 
1980 

A I RPORTS 



(D 

O 
E 
ro 



ro 

i- (0 

+- +- 

C CO 

O O 

O O 







c 










u 


o 


ro 






l/l 


CD 


s_ 








+- 


ro 






u 


ro 




(D 




sz 




O 


Gi- 


c 


ro 






ro 


ro 


i_ 








co 


u_ 


CO 


CO 



o 

c 
ro 

O 
co 



O 
O 

CO 



A I RCRAFT 
LOCATION 

TOTAL 



SANTA CLARA 



SOLANO 



SONOMA 



Owner 
Tota I s 



Palo Alto 


10 














150 


450 








610 


Re id-Hi 1 1 view 


10 














30 


660 








700 


San Jose 


10 














20 


500 








530 


South County 




















600 








600 






















500 








500 


sub total 


30 














200 


2710 








2940 


Nut Tree 











10 











90 





100 


K 1 O VI STa 


n 
u 


u 


u 


n 
u 


n 
u 


u 


u 


fin 
ou 


n 
u 


ou 


Vaca-D i xon 


a 
U 


U 


u 


A 
U 


A 

u 


u 


u 


I u 


A 

u 


i n 
l u 


Ma i ne-Pra i re 























10 





10 


Sub total 











10 











170 





180 


Sonoma Co. 


























280 


280 


Cloverda le 


























30 


30 


Hea 1 dsburg 


























40 


40 


Sonoma Va 1 1 ey 











10 














20 


30 


Sea Ranch 


























20 


20 


New a i rport 






10 


10 


20 











100 


140 


sub total 








10 


20 


20 











490 


540 


Location 
























1200 


800 


340 


220 


380 


940 


2960 


230 


520 


7590 



A-7 



OWNER LOCATION 



ALLOCATION OF 
GENERAL AVIATION 
AIRCRAFT TO AIRPORTS 

1985 
A I RPORTS 



(0 












in 


+- 










-o 


(0 












ro 






o 


ro 


CD 




(0 


c 






o 




ro 


ro 


c 


E 


E 


+- 


+- 




ro 




c 




+- 




ro 


O 


(0 


c 


C/l 


i_ 


CL 


c 


ro 


c 


c 


ro 




c 




O 


O 


ro 


ro 


ro 


L. 


ro 


ro 




O 


o 


< 


CJ 


O 






00 


u_ 


co 


CO 


O 


CO 


CO 



A I RCRAFT 
LOCAT I ON 
TOTAL 



ALAMEDA 



L i vermore 
Hayward 
Oak I and 
1980 airport 
sub total 



CONTRA COSTA 



Buchanan 
1980 ai rport 
new a i rport 
sub total 



310 


1 10 














100 








520 


430 


10 








70 


60 


20 








590 


430 


80 








150 


30 











690 


150 


10 











70 


400 








630 


1320 


210 








220 


160 


520 








2430 


70 


500 





10 


20 








10 





610 


10 


200 

















20 





230 


10 


100 

















10 





120 



90 



800 



10 20 



40 



960 



MARIN 



Gnoss 
sub total 



390 



20 



10 



390 



20 



10 



420 



420 



NAPA 



Angw i n 
Ca I i stoga 
Napa 

Usibel I i 
new a i rport 
sub total 












20 

















20 











20 

















20 





40 


40 


200 











40 


30 


350 











10 

















10 


























20 


20 





40 


40 


250 











40 


50 


420 



SAN FRANCISCO 



SAN MATEO 



Ha I f Moon 
San Carlos 
SF0 

new airport 
sub total 















30 


280 


40 








350 














60 


350 


70 








480 














10 


30 











40 














30 


100 


50 








180 














130 


760 


160 








1050 



Chart 3 



A-8 



OWNER LOCATION 



ALLOCATION OF 
GENERAL AVI A", . ON 
AIRCRAFT TO AIRPORTS 
1985 



A I RPORTS 















O 


o 






















U 













(0 












tn 


4- 










"O 


(0 












ro 






o 


(0 


CD 


i_ 


(0 


'c 






u 


> 


ro 


ro 


tz 


E 


E 


•+- 


+- 




(0 




c: 




+- 




ro 


O 




c 


I/) 


s_ 


CL 


c 


ro 


c 


£Z 


(0 




c 




O 


O 


ro 


(D 


ro 


i_ 


ro 


ro 




O 


O 


< 


o 


o 


:> 


2 


00 


u_ 


CO 


CO 


o 


CO 


CO 



AIRCRAFT 
LOCATION 

TOTAL 



SANTA CLARA 



Pa 1 o A 1 to 


20 





o 


o 


o 


1 60 


500 


o 


o 


680 


Ried-Hi 1 1 


20 














30 


500 








550 


San Joss 





o 


o 


o 


o 


1 


300 


o 


o 


3 1 


So County 




















600 








600 


1980 ai rport 


10 














20 


500 








530 


new a i rport 

















30 


500 





A 

u 


530 


new a i rport 




















420 








420 


sub total 


50 














250 


3320 








3620 


SOLANO 






















Nut Tree 























100 





100 


Rio Vista 























70 





70 


Vaca Dixon 























10 





10 


Maine Praire 























10 





10 


new a i rport 











10 











50 





60 


sub total 











10 











240 





250 


SONOMA 






















Sonoma Co. 











10 














330 


340 


C 1 overda le 


























40 


40 


He" ! dsburg 


























50 


50 


Sonoma Va 1 . 











10 














40 


50 


Sea Ranch 


























20 


20 


1980 a i rport 








10 


10 


30 











160 


210 


sub total 








10 


30 


30 











640 


710 


Owner Location 






















Total 


1460 


1050 


440 


300 


420 


1 170 


4000 


320 


700 


9860 



A-9 







— 




CD 


CD 


01 


"O 


01 


0) 


O' 


o 


Ql 


o 


01 


I— 


CD 






< 


QJ 


> 
— 


~i 






o 


_> 


o 




-J 


CD 


-+ 


O 




T3 


QJ 





'S 




-+ 


QI 


CD 


-+ 


T 


O 


T) 


3 




01 


CD 




3 


O 






<: 




QJ 




T 


o 


O 


o 


3" 


o 





vO 
O 



QJ 
CD 
CD 



O 
QJ 
T3 
QJ 

o 



o 



Uo 

o 

o 
o 
o 

CD 
3 
3 



o 

"O 
CD 
~l 
Q) 











CO 


CO 












2 
















o 












> 




co 


co 


I 


-> 


> 




cr 


2 


o 


> 


> 




CO 


CD 


> 




CO 


> 


o 




O co 


~n 


ZC 




r - 






CO 


QJ 




2 




01 


CD 


Ql 








3 




70 








2 




QJ 




QJ 




3> 


01 


3 


3 








01 




~o 




CD 


> 






o 




01 


o 


-r 


H 


01 


7T ■< 


CD 


-< 


< 




c 






-h 




Tl 


c 


cr 


CO 




S 




01 


-r 


01 


Z 


£Z 


3" 






c 




3 




CD 


m 


cr 


Tl 


o 




> 




cr 


CD 




01 






c 


zr 


01 




cr 


CO 


o 


> 


cr 


CO CO 


O 


QJ 


-I 


o 




-1 • 


co 


<: 


—\ 


> 








-H 


3 




cr 










3 


o 






3 QJ 


3 


~s 


3 


> 


-+ 


CO 


-j 


o 


m 


2 


-f 






O 








X' 






-+ 


QJ 


3" 


O 




Q. — 


-(- 


Cl 


O 




Ot 


nc 


o 


on 


o 


o 


Ot 






CO 
QJ 






to 


an 






ot 


3 




HQ 


ot 


2 — 






re 




CO 




01 






CO 


co 












■+ 


o 






QJ 






-1 


QJ 


O 3 












SCO 








CO 














QJ 


3" 












> 




-s co 

-f 

rr 



















M 




CS> 


-p* 


Ul 


Ul 


o 


o 











uo 

n! CO w 
Ul -P» UI 



rO — 
M vO ID 

o o o 



K) ID W 

o o o 



UO M 
4i CD M 

o o o 



uo 

ui o 4^> 

cooo 



uo — 

UO — OO 
MOO 



.M rO 
M Ul M 
-~J O O 



M — 

-C> W CD 
O 00 J> 



UO — 

--j oo 

Ul -pa. 



UO 
CJv 



UO — UO 
M O Ul O 



-J 

ui ui ui ui 



00 

O Ul O O 



CTi 

Ul O Ul Ul 



— I — M 

CTuD O O 



UO 

■fe O M W 



O 

o w w 



M 

O O Ul Ul 



— M 

<J\ Ul <J\ M 

oo oo oo cn 



_ .j> 

Ol W OMsJ 

CO Cn CO Cn 

* 



A-10 



UO VO 

cn 



UO Ul 

ui o 



— UO 
Ul Ul 



ui oo 

O Ul 



— o 

Ul o 



•J> Ul 

o o 



-P* cn 
o o 



vO vO 

o o 



vO vO 

o o 



UO 

co cn 
cn o 



uo 

Ul Ul 



00 M 
Ul O 



4> 

Cv VO 
O Ul 



UO 

-P=. UO 
-J O 



UO 

o cn 



-p* — 
o -t^ 



OO 

M vO 

o o 



UO — 

M 00 



UO — 

-fe. oo 
o J> 



cn 



-fc> — 
oo — oo o oo 

vl vj O Ol vl 



UO UO — 

K) iNJ UJ CaI VD 

o o o o o 



cn -c=. -P» o co 

O O O Ul o 



CO Oi vl W vl 

o o o ui o 



UJ MM 

o w co vi 

O O Ul 4^ O 



UO M 
vO -Pa- Ul Ul M 

o oo cn o o 



cn — -p* 

O M Ji> O O 



-P^ UJ M 

ui ui cn cn cn 

O O O O O 



Ul — UO M 

4^ vo cn cn uo 
cn uo oo uo cn 



Ul — Uo UO 

4^ vo cn cn o 
cn uo co uo — 



CD > 




-< — 




_ 70 




O "0 




o o 










vo 


—\ CO 




-< 


Ul 



Chart 4 



— 01 TJ 

VO CD ~ 5 

cn 3 cd 
oo -+ i 



D- XI O 
CD CD O 
3 01 • 



cn 
oo 



co 
o 
o 



— 1 

— -I 

< QJ 

CD — 

-I 3 

01 — 

— 3 
O CO 
3 



CO 


— 1 


m 


-+■ 




01 


QJ 


QJ 


-t- 




— K 




-h 


-h 


i 






01 


3= 


n 


-+ 






OD 






Cl 









n 


o 


> 


Ql 


o 


3 


-+ 


o 


3 






C 


o 




01 


3 

















73 


m 


> 




C 


X 


3 


■ — 1 


3 




3 


o 


S. 


01 


C 




ay 


-+ 


01 

o 

o o 


X) 


j 


T| 


O CO 


c 




C 


^ "O 


3 


0) 


L 


CO 


£ 




c 


o 


CO 




-) 




•< 


CD 


CD 


-+ 


01 


Q. 




^< 










cr > m 


O 


m 


X! > 


-< ~ X 


< 


X 


<X> Cl 


-I — 


CD 


T3 


O CL 


"O 01 


"1 


Ql 


c — 


o -+ 




3 


— -+ 


-1 — 


o 


CL 


~) — 


-+ 3 


01 




CD O 


CO 


CL 


or 


Q. 3 
QJ 








> 




J- 


2 








CD 




VO 


-1 




X) 


-J 


T3 




o 


Ul 


ort 




-I 
■+ 

o 








ap 






O 






O 


CO 






3 


o 






3 








CD 


-+ 






3 


■< 






-+ 








01 





* 
* 

Cr- 
rS 
Ql 
CD 
-I 

n 
o 
zj 

U) 

-f 
I 
c 

o 



TZ> 
-1 
CD 
l/l 
CD 
ZJ 



o 

33 
> 



O 
-I 
> 
I - 

CO 



K> 



Ul 

CTi 
Ul 



Ul 

cr\ 

00 

o 
Ul 

M 
O 
O 

CO 



^1 



vo 



-J 

CO 



co 
o 

vO 
CO 



Ul 



















CO 




























^2 


m 


> 






CO CO 


co 




-n 


T 


(-) 


CO 


Q 








<^ 






^ j 




■ 


CO 


co 


i 


__ 
U 


j* 










CD 7T 


o 




CD 







o 






CD 


CD 


CD 






1 — 




o 


o 


DJ 


fl) 


CD 


~z_ 








Ul 


DJ ■< 


Z5 




-+ 


0J 


O 




O 






n 


O 


o 


-f 


D> 


(/) 


-1 


c 


ZJ 






— i 


o 


PO 




c 


"O 


o 




CD 




< 


O 




c 


ZJ 




CD 








[Z 


CO 


-+ 




CL 


o 


-> 


o 




cr 


33 Q) 


3 


o 




CL 


CD 


3 


> 


cr 


CD 


< 


1 


< 


H 


o 


O" 


DJ 


zr 


c_ 


1 






cr 


73 


vO 




DJ -1 


CD 


O 


C 


uj 


~1 


CD 










o 




-J 






zj 




O 


IE 




o 


-z. 


H 


-J 


-1- 


13 




zj 


3 


cr 


CL 






-+ 


~0 








CD 




-f 




O 


CO 






r~ 


-\ 


CO 


Ul 


O 


O 


< 


-f 


CD 




0J 


o 




O 


~J 




X 


-f 


CD 




O 




O 


CD 




-+ 


> 


-< 




■+ 


zr 


CD 


CD 




~5 




o 




-+ 


CD 


CD 


o 


DJ 






-+ 










O 










co 






-j 




CQ 


CD 






CD 






ZJ 








CD 








< 




> 









Ul 



CD 
•< 



W W -ti vl M — 00 
Ul — O M — 



CO W M W i> 

OUIUIOOUIUIO 



— M — UJ — 

OU1U1UIOOOO 



— Ul 4^ OS M NJ Ul 
OOOUlOUlUlO 



Ul U M VO 

jiOO-t^couiMW 



W W CO Ul IS) w w 
(304^000000 



M 0\ O O O O 



Ul 
Ul o 



— Ul 4^ O Ol Ul M ^1 
OOOOOOUIO 



M M M M 

(JUlvHOUlNNW 
COM — OOMMCTi 



MMMM 

CTiUI-JsOUlMMM 
00 N> — OOMMCA 



A-ll 



VO Ul — K) 
O) CO Ul v£) O CO 



— 4^ Ul J> 
O Ul Ul o o 



M 

O Ul O Ul O 



— Ul Ul J> 
O O Ul Ul o 



N) — -P=> 
4^ O Ul — K> 



45» Ul 
00 O A O 



M K) 
NOvOCTiO 



— 4^ vl Ul 
O O Ul o o 



Ul O) nI Ul \D 
M CO — O O 



Ul CTi -J Ul vO 
M CO — O O 



Ul -C=» M 

* O K> 00 

* U O Ul 



— 4^> Ul Ul Ul 
O CD Ul O Ul 
O O O O O 



nj uj ru 

o o Ul Ul Ul 



— 4^ Ul Ul 4^ 
O W vl LM vl 
O O Ul Ul Ul 



v^i KJ K) 
* CO N> — 
Ul * vO — O 



Ul Ul 4^ U 

co vi - w co 
o o o o o 



KJ Ul Ul Ul 4^ 

o o o o o 



-M\)WW 
O O CO CO 4^ 

o o o o o 



M K) 
O Ul w 
I O — vD 



— 4^ 4=» UJ Ul 
vO O O UJ ' — I 
O O O vO Ul 



Chart 4 
(continued) 



CL 33 O 

CD CD O 
Z5 W ■ 



O > -K 


















3D 


m 


> 




vO 


c 


X 






^1 


3 




ZJ 




o 


C 


ui 


C 






CD 


-t- 


at 






■< 














o 










o o 




33 


TJ 


~n 


O CD 




c 




c_ 


— TZ) 




Z) 


01 


_f 


0) 




£ 


3 


C 


o 




CD 


3 


1 






•< 


IS 





-4- 




l/l 


fX 




-< 












cr 


> m 


o 


m 


33 > 




— X 


< 


X 


CD Cl 




-i — 


CD 


■a 


O Q. 




TD l/l 


1 


0) 


C — 




o 




3 


— -+ 




-1 — 


o 


c k 


-1 — 




-+ Zl 


01 




CD O 




CO 


CL 


o 


CL 3 










CD 










> 






> 


r. 






vO 






-1 




— J 




< 


■o 




Ul 


"O 




o 











-1 






T 




-f 






-f 














o 










Ql 
















n 


TD 










01 










r> 








3 


5 








-t- 










Ul 





in 
c 



o 



to 
o 



oo 
o 



oo 
o 
o 



Ul 
— J 



^1 
o 



VO 

o 



oo 
o 



VO 
M 



VO 
VO 



CA 
M 



K> 
O 
O 



— W W I 

vO 0) Ql 0) 

Q) oo 3 3 — 
— o 

-i ~n O _ 

~o 3 n qj :<: 

O CD Q) -j O 

-i s: 3 — o 

— I- O O =3 

— in 
i/i 

o 

OWN) 

CO M 

o o o 



CO 

> 



CO 

> 



> 



Ul O O 

o o o 



— M Ji 
O O O 



-P» NJ 
J> M -P> 
O O O 



Ul — 
Ul -P» VO 

<J\ K> CO 



U N) 
U ~-J — 

cr\ oo o\ 



^ j> u 

Ul Ul o 



Ul M 

U Ul -J> 
— Ul On 



M — 

J> Cft CO 
O CO -t> 



u — 

■t> oo 

OU1* 



in qj 

— ~D 
D" 0J 
CD 



CTi 



M 
O 

O I 



o — 

CO 
O 

o 

vO 
Ul 



o > 

QJ 3 

— ID 

— S 
l/) — 
-+ => 

o 

01 



CTv • 

Ul O Ul Ul 



— M M M 
O O O O 



O O O O 



- W fO M 

o o o o 



J> 

Ul J> -P» Ji 



vD O CO CO 



> 

> 



— vO 

O M M 



-P> 

M O t\J M 
O O O O 



NJ 

CTi Ul CTi M 
00 CO 00 CT> 



— 

CTi f\) CTv N) 

co oi co a 



i i i i 



01 CD 
tz 3 
cr O 
Ul 
-t- Ul ' 
O 
-+ 
QJ 



> in 
73 c 

— Cr QJ 

Z — 

-+ "I 

O -o 

-I- O 

DJ -j 



— CO 

VO C 

co n 

o rr 

QJ 

3 3 

CD QJ 

S 3 



C* 
O 



O O 
O O 
CO 2 
— I —I 
> 73 
3> 



Ul 

o o 



A-12 



co 
o 



o 
o 



Ul 

oo 
o 



Ul 

o 



ho 
o 



J> 
o 
o 



u 

M 

-pi 



u 
-pi 
o 



CTi 
O 



in 
cr 

-+ 
O 
-f 
QJ 



DJ 



-Olr 

VO QJ QJ 

00 7T -< 

O — £ 

— . Qj Qj 

-I 3 3 -I 

d (D a d. O 
OS -i 

-1 CD 



— > 

< 3 

CD 
~1 
3 



o 
o 



Ul 

o 



M 
Ul 

o 



M 
UJ 
O 



O 



u 
o 
o 



Ul 

o 
o 



XD 


-I 


— 1 


o 


CD 


3" 


1 


"O 




-f 




in 


in 


QJ 






n 


< 




CD 


n 


3 






-+ 


-1- 
3" 


Qj 


=r 







CD 




-J 




73 


X) 


Tl 




O 


"I 




-J 


CD 


< 


-f 


3 


QJ 




O 


-+ 


s 


3 


CD 


o 


-+ 




c 




QJ 




QJ 








-I 




CD 


1 











-pi -pi M 
CO U — I 
O Ul o 



U U M 
vO 00 Ul 

o o o 



M 

J> Ul M 

o o o 



cr> ui ui 

U — --J 

o o o 



J> Ul M 
U VO -J^ 
N) M Ul 



Ul J> Ul 
si Ol w 

o o o 



CTv 

O O 3 



u. -Pi ui 
o u 
o o o 



Ul U M 

-p=> cr> uj 

CA Ul CTi 



Ul UJ Ul 
ON O 

Ol w- 



K) J> UJ 

o o o 



> 



CD 


3> 




-< 














~D 




o 


O 


oo 


c 


73 


o 


NT 


Si 




-< 







VO 
Ul 







CL 73 r 7 


j'y 


>> 


CD CD 


-f 




3 in • 


Cu 


-J 


-1- — 




o 


in .1 




-1 






0) 








O 


> 




-f 


— 


■+ 


3" 


— 




CD 






-1 


T 




Ui 


1) 






■+ 




—1 


D • 







3 




-r 






0) 
— 






VO 






~>J 






Ul 






« CO 


CO 


—H m 


~ 0J 




H u> 


o 


Oj 


DJ -+ 


g CD 




-t> — 






-t- 3 


QJ 




-. Q) 


5> 


o -+ 


Q, 




ed 




o 




o — t 


n 


O 


— • ~j 


QJ 


^ — ' — ' 


< 0J 




V—/ -J 


CD — 




w C 


-j 3 


o 




(/) 1 — 


3 




— 3 






O IQ 






3 






—1 






o 






•+ 






0) 












— 73 


m 




VO c 


X 


3 


3 




3 


o s. 


Ul 


C 


^ DJ 


-f 


DJ 


•< 










O 






o o 


73 ~0 


T\ 


O 0J 


c — 


C 


^ T3 


3 OJ 


-f 


0) 


£ 3 


c 


o 


0) 3 






(ft 




-+ 


C/l CL 




-< 








c u> rn O 


rn 


X) > 


^< — • x < 


x 


CD CL 


-j — (D 


"O 


-O Cl 


^z? in ~i 


Qj 


c — 


o -+ 


3 


— -+ 


~1 — o 


CL 


-1 — 


-+ 3 0J 




CD O 


CO CL 


o 


CL 3 






0) 






> 


_ > 


IT 




VO — 


CD 




CO T 


£ 


"O 






O 


° o 




-i 


-1 




— H 


-f 










O 






0J 




O 


"O 






0) 






o 




3 






CD 


-+ 




3 


-< 




-4- 






U) 





Chart 5 



o 
X 
> 



o 

— I 

> 



Ul 

o 
o 



Ul 
00 
O 



^1 
Ul 
vO 

o 



Ul 

oo 
oo 



en 
^i 
uj 
o 



Ul 
Ul 

u 



<3\ 
Ul 



oo 
UJ 



Ul 
o 
o 

















CO 












CO 














CO 


CD 


> 






— 


CO 


CO 




o 


CO 


o 


Ul 




< 


X 


~ZL 


O 


in 


— 


co 


co 






> 


-< 






c 


VO 





O 


(D 




O 




c 


QJ 






C 


r - 


c 


VO 


O 


QJ 


CD 


QJ 






XI 




O" 


CO 


0) 


ZJ 


0) 


o 




o 


cr 




o 


o 


-)- 


> 


O" 


co 


£Z 


3 






—1 


O 


"D 


vO 








O 




< 


o 






in 


0) 










o 


H- 




Q_ 


O 


> 


o 


O 


co 


H- 




x 


3 


CL 




3 


> 


-+ 


(D 


1 


< 


— 1 


O 


-+ 




zr 


c_ 








cz 


RT 
r\ 1 


o 


O 


3 


QJ 


QJ 


in 


-1 


CD 




O 




o 




~I 




O 


3 




O 


rr 




O 






-+ 


CD 






cr 


CL 






-+ 


~U 




in 


CD 




-+ 


CD 


O 


in 








— 1 


CO 




0) 


s. 


o 


< 




0) 






QJ 


-J 


X 


-+ 


CD 




QJ 


s: 


o 


CD 




-+ 


> 


-< 








0) 


ZT 


0) 


-I 

IQ 


CD 








cu 


on 


QJ 








DJ 






< 


o 


RA 









CD 



— 4^ M M Ul 

O O Ul Ul O 



— M 

O M M UJ CO 
O O O O O O 



O O O O O O 



— ro 

W W -MjJ OJ 

o o o o o o 



U KJ M W 
vO <3\ Ul U U 



M — rO Ul M U 
OMD vl CTi vl O 



\l CA Ul 



M — U 

o w w o w o 
o o o o o o 



M KJ W 

I CTi M M M 
CO - M M Ol 



K> K) DO 

(J\ ->J W M M 
CO — hO M CT\ 



— I 
I Ul 



M 
O 

O I I 



CO 



A-13 



— Ul -C* 
O Ul u o 



0\ VO 

o o o o 



o o o o 



en o 

o o o o 



Ul UJ 
vO -E^ O 0> 



U vO 
VO VO -> O 



Ul CJ\ 
CT» O 



u 

o o o o 



M — 

Ul Ul vO 
M — O O 



M — 

U ■ — I Ul VO 
M — O O 



O 



cn 
o 



Ul Ul 
~J Ul -J 
Ul Ul Ul 



Ul CT> Ul CTn -P^ 
O O O Q\ Ul 

o o o o o 



U CJ\ 

o o o o o 



ui o> ui' cr> 

O O UJ O — 

o o o o o 



Js. Ul -£> 
— — 00 M 
CO M CO 



-£» Ul -P* U) 

ui co uj u 
o o o o o 



ui ■£> oo uj ui 
o o o o o 



-p» .£» .J> -£> 

O O O O O 

o o o o o 



-P* K) M 
O Ul Ul 
O — vO 



-P» -C» Ul Ul 
O O Ul -J 
O O vO Ul 



I — Ul 



Chart 5 
(continued ) 



VO 
Ul 



xo 



o 
-+ 
zr 
CD 
~) 

in bj 





CD 




0) 




in 




CO 




CL 


n 
-+ 


> 




"I 




o 




-J 




QJ 


> 


-»> 
■+ 







vO 
U 



— CTJ 

VO CD 



O 
O 



O — I 

— ~I 
< 0) 
CD — 
-5 3 
U) — 

— Z3 
O CO 



co — ( m 
n i/i 
|QJ Q) -+ 

~tN — 

3 

— Q) 



CD 

CL 

> 

C 
QJ 



— X) m 

vO C X 

«J 3 — 

O £ V) 

QJ -+ 

■< • 



x X) "n 

c — c 

3 QJ — l 

S 3 C 

QJ 3 -1 

■< CD CD 

l/l CL 



> 
3 
3 
C 
Q> 

O 

o o 

O QJ 
^- TZI 
QJ 
O 



cr > 
-< — 
-I 
X> 
O 
-1 



-+ 3 



O m 

< X 
CD "O 

-I QJ 

— 3 

O CL 
01 

CO CL o 

-1 



x> > 

CD CL 

n cl 

c — 

— -+ 

~i — 

CD O 
CL 3 
QJ 



vO 
CO 
O 



> z 

— CD 
-I « 
"O 

O 



-i 
■o 
o 
-1 



o 

QJ 
TJ 
Q> 

n 



If) 


— 


CO 


co 


rr 


> 


:> 


in 


— 


cz 


z: 


o 


> 


c 


vo 


CD 


CD 


CD 






a 


VO 


in 


CD 


CD 


ZJ 


<~7 


oo 


zj 




— 






O" 


00 


— • 


TD 





CO 




o 






-h 




~n 




Ul 




OI 


— • 


s 


-+ 




~n 


o 




> 


3^ 


-+ 




CD 




in 


— • 


o 


ZS 


-j 


CD 




—i 


-> 


O 


ZJ 


— 




-1- 


ZJ 




CD 


01 




o 


m 




-+ 


CD 






o 




OJ 


£ 


ZJ 




o 


o 


o 


0J 


£ 






CO. 








o 


o 
















0) 






0) 










CO 


























o 
















~I 


n 








O 




-J 














o 
























o 














O 












rt 














rt 










00 














fO 






N) 






O 








4s» 






00 








M 




o 




o 


o 


o 




o 


o 


i 


o 


o 


o 


o 








Ul 








N) 












OA 




ui 


Ul 


00 






Ul 






o 


M 


M 


O 




o 


o 


o 




o 


O 




o 


o 


o 


O 


rO 






— 








— 






~~ 






VO 


00 




Ul 








si 






Ul 






O 


o 


o 


o 


o 




o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


— 

o 








Ul 












Ul 






Ul 


oo 


-l> 


oo 


Ul 








M 




Ul 


M 


rO 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 




o 


o 


O 


o 


o 


o 


o 


oo 


M 




Ul 






















o 




UJ 


4s. 






ca 






o 


M 


K> 


o 


o 




Ul 


c\ 




o 


o 


1 


O 


o 


O 


O 


o 






-l> 


Ul 






-J> 






Ul 






Ul 


00 




CD 


Ul 






M 


1 j 




Ul 


NJ 


M 


o 


o 


o 


o 


O 




o 


o 


O 


o 


o 


O 


O 



W^CD o 
O Ul o o 



Ul -I> J^. 
O Ul O Ul 
O Ul o o 



ru — 
-o ca oo 
o oo 



Ul ui — 
o t> co 

O O Ul 4^ 



Ul 
00 

O Ul 



M OA 
I Ul CA 



00 
00 

o oo 



Ul 

O Ul 



o 

O Ul Ul 



~-J — Ul fsj NJ 
O Ul O Ul Ul 



— NJ 

Ol Ul Ol w 

co co co cn 



_ 4^ 

oa m ca ru 

CO CA 00 CA 











— 






o 


in 


— 








>> 


in 


O 


> 


in 


VO 


— 


CD 


o 


c 




o 


X 






c 


ZJ 




CZ 


oo 


VO 


£Z 


■z. 


cr 


oo 


cu 


CD 




> 


O" 


O 




cr 


Ul 


CO 


o 


— i 




o 






< 






in 








o 


zr 


70 


-+ 






£ 


CD 


m 


— 1- 


in 




-f 


ZJ 




Cd 


> 


O 


0) 


cu 




~ 




O 






O 


CD 


CD 


ZJ 




-+ 




ZJ 


~1 


3 


> 


-+ 






-+ 


£ 




0) 


o 


cu 


—J 


CL 


a. 


O 




cu 






0) 




-J 


ZJ 


o 




TD 






-1 












0) 
-1 


por 




STA 




ort 






CD 





CD 
-< 



Ul 

o 



Ul 
VO 
O 



Ul 

o 



4^ 
O 



Ul 

o 
o 



O 



si 

o 



UJ 
Ul 

o 



VO 

o 



VO 
O 



CA 

o 



A-14 



O 



— Ul 

oo 
o o 



- W Ul 

o o o 
o o o 



M Ul — 

o o o 



- M en 

l\J Ul — 

o o o 



K) -!> 

o o 
I o o 



— M Ol 
M U — 

o o o 



— M 

oo o — 
o o o 



N> Ul 4=» 
O Ul O 

o o o 



Ul 
4s> 



M Ul 
O 4S> 
O O 



Ul CA 

o o 



M CA Ul Ul 
Ul Ul — <J 

o o o o 



— .£>-!> Ul 
Ul Ul Ul — 

o o o o 



4^ K> — N> 
00 CA CA — 
O O O O 



CA CA Ul Ul 
Ul VO VO NJ 
O O O O 



Ul Ul 4^ U 
O --J O U 
O O O O 



CA OA Ul Ul 
Ul VO VO M 
O O O O 



03 O CO si 

o o o o 



W Ul Ul 
Ul VO — Ul 

o o o o 



ui ui iu 

Ji, CA UJ 
CA Ul CA 



Ul Ul UJ Ul 
O 4^ OA O 
O CA Ul — 



VJ1 4^ 4^ -I> 
O -1> si VO 



VO 
CO 
Ul 



Chart 6 



VO 

oo 
o 



-nr-rr— 

CD CD O 
ZJ in O 



O 




in to 



vO 
oo 
o 





UJ 






m 




0) 






U) 


o 


in 


CD 


Ol 


■4 


o 


CD 


-+i 


-h 




o 


Cl 


-h 


-h 


3 


01 








CU 


\ 




> 


O 


-+ 


o 








CD 










CL 













o 


— 1 


n 


O 


> 




-J 


CD 


O 


ZJ 


< 


CU 


-+ 


o 


ZJ 


CD 








£Z 


-I 


ZJ 







Ol 


in 




ZJ 








ZJ 








O 


CQ 








ZJ 












To- 










r 
0) 





























73 


m 


>» 


VO 


c 


X 


Z! 


--J 


ZJ 






O 


£ 


in 


c 




ay 


-+ 


cu 

o 

o o 


70 


Tl 


~n 


o cu 


sz 




c 




Z5 


Ol 




cu 


£ 


ZJ 


c 


o 


CU 


ZJ 


~J 




■< 


CD 


CD 


-+ 


in 


Q. 




'< 



cr > m O 



in 



m 

< X 

TD 
-1 CU 
-+ — ZJ 
— O cl 
zj cu 
co o. o 



vO 

oo 

Ul 



TD 
O 
1 



JO D> 

CD CL 

n CL 

C — 



CD O 
CL D 
CU 



-J 
"O 

O 
-s 



O 
cu 

"O 

cu 
o 



CD 
70 
> 



w qj 

c — 

cr -j 

— I- O 



— CO CO 
VD D O 
00 CD 3 

o 

3D 
3 QJ 
CD 3 

s o 



01 



o CO CO 

— o o 

o => z 

< • o 



>£> 0) 

oo — 

Ul 3 
CD 



zr — -i 

CD CO 
■< 

M W J> 

o o o 



IS) 
U 00 
O O 



U 

|\) 42. Ul 42. U 
O O O O O 



O O O O O 



Ul 

K) UI U1 Ji. -fc 

o o o o o 



— u 

K) U O W O 

o o o o o 



Ul 

IS) Ul Ul 42. 4=> 

o o o o o 



Is) si 
O O O 



4^ 
O 



M vj M 

o o o 



Ul 

42. O 
Ul O 



IS) N) IS) 

W si M M M 
00 — N) N) CTi 



K) W M 

CTi -J IS) IS) M 
00 — W M Ol 



si 



70 



o o 



co 
o 



o 



Ul si o 

o o o o o 



o o o o o 



a\ si o 

o o o o o 



Ul 

o o o o 



CTl si O 

o o o o o 



vO 00 O 

O Ul Ul o o 



— Is) IS) 

Ul Ul o 

O Ul Ul o o 



Is) — 

Ul si Ul 
IS) — o o 



Is) — 

Ul si Ul 

is) — o o 



Ul 

o 



CD 

U) vo — 

oo oo -i 
ui ui ~o 
o 

3 3 ~J 
CD CD — I- 



co co to 

O CD CD 



o 

O in 
O 



O CO 



> 



Ul 

o 
o 



42. Ul Ul 
MOO 

o o o 



ui ui 
o o o 



42. Ul Ul 
Is) Ul Ul 

o o o 



42. 

o 
o 



42. Ul Ul 
M W W 

o o o 



ui co co 
o o o 



42. 42- -ts. 
Ul Ul Ul 

o o o 



42. 

o 
o 



Ul Ul Ul 

o o o 



42» 42. 

o o 
o o 



CTt Ul si 0\ 
O Ul o — 

o o o o 



Oi W Ul Ul 

o o o o 
o o o o 



— ui oo 
o o o o 



C7N U Ul 

o — ui co 
o o o o 



42. 42. 42. 42. 

o o o o 
o o o o 



Q\ U Ul On 
O — Ul CO 
O O O O 



— ^ — IS) 
Ul UI Ul Ul 
O O O Ul 



42. IS) l>- 42. 
Ul CTi O IS) 
O O O Ul 



42. IS) IS) 
O Ul Ul 
O — 



42. 42. Ul U 
O O Ul si 
O O Ul 



Ul 
O 



ui 
o o 



O CD>- 

O -< — v£> 

CZ 70 00 

~Z- "0 Ul 

o 

70 



CO 



-< 



CD CD O 
3 Ul 



vO 
00 
O 



—I 

— -1 

< 0) 

CD — 

-I 3 

01 — 

— 3 

O CO 
3 



3 
01 

-+ 

CD 

CL 

> 

3 
Zl 

c 

CD 



Chart 6 (continued) 



















70 


m 




> 




vO 


c 


X 




3 




si 


3 






3 




O 


S 


Ul 




C 






ay 


■+ 


o 
o 


CD 
O 




XI 


Tl 


~n 


o 


01 




c 




c 




X) 




3 


01 






0) 






3 


d 




o 




0) 


3 










< 


CD 


CD 




-+ 






CL 






-< 














cr > 


m 





m 


D 


> 


•< — 


X 


< 


X 


CD 


Cl 


~ i 




CD 


Xi 


a 


CL 


"O 


Ul 




01 


c 




O 


-t- 




3 




-+ 


~i 




o 


CL 


-i 




-+ 


3 






(D 


o' 






CL 


or 


a 


3 
0) 












> 






> 














CD 






oo 












Ul 




port 






ort C 












apac 








( ) 

1 










i 












en 




5 



A-15 



APPENDIX B 
FORECASTS 



ESTIMATE OF TOTAL COMMERCIAL AIRCRAFT MOVEMENTS 



IN THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA 



Allocated Avg. Passengers/ Annual Commercial 

Airport Passengers (MAP) Flight Operation* Operations (OOP) 

1975 SFO 19 70 270 

OAK 6 65 93 

SJC 3 65 46 
TRA 

HAM/NAP 



TOTAL 28 409 



1980 SFO 23 85 270 

OAK 13 85 153 

SJC 6 80 75 

TRA 1 80 13 

HAM/ NAP 1 80 13 

TOTAL 44 524 



1985 SFO 31 100 310 

OAK 24 100 240 

SJC 10 95 105 

TRA 6 95 63 

HAM/NAP 1 95 11 

TOTAL 72 729 



* The average passengers per flight operation includes all -cargo and 
positioning flights. The lower figure for each year is for those 
airports with no 747 type aircraft. The seat factor from which these 
figures are computed is: 1975: 45%; 1980: 53%; 1985: 60%. 



B-1 



FORECASTING EQUATIONS 



The equation for projecting passenger traffic is as follows: 

T = P A- (3.8915 P z + 1.5439 P 7 - 469.966) 
z z J c z 1 



Where 



T z = annual enplaned and deplaned passenger traffic, 
in thousands, generated in the zone 

P z = resident population of the zone in hundred thousands 

A,- = adjustment factors 1975 = .884 

1980 = .901 

1985 = .969 

E z = number of people working in the zone, in thousands 

Y z = total annual personal income of residents of the zone, 
in millions 



By 1975, connecting traffic is estimated to be 15% of total traffic . This 
connecting traffic is not computed in the above formula, and must therefore 
be included in the calculation of the total product. 



The equation for projecting air cargo traffic is as follows: 

Enplaned Cargo: 
II 

Log E = 1.61754 log Y - 1.3953 log R + 1.9559 
Deplaned Cargo: 

Log T£ = 1 .6994 log Y - 1 .6746 log R + 2.1484 

Where: 

T = Total annual volume of cargo enplanement or deplanement in 
millions of pounds 

E = Total employment in millions 

Y = Total annual personal income of all residents in billions of 
current dollars 

R = Average cargo revenue yield for all U.S. route certificated 
carriers in current cents per revenue ton mile : 
1975 = 16.8; 1980 = 15.2; 1985 = 14.5 



PASSENGER FORECASTS 



Population 


Empl oyment 


Income 


Annual Passengers 


(hundred 




(millions 


including 15% connec 


County thousands) 


( thousands ) 


of dollars) 


ting (thousands) 


A I ameda I l .^y 


/ICO 

4bo 


, / / ' J 


c con 


Contra Costa 6.14 


I by 


,(J0U 


O A C C\ 


y ^ 00*7 

Mann c.cl 


CO 
DC 


1 /1 cn 


i a nn 

1 ,4yu 


Napa .00 


oc 
00 


40b 


6/y) 


San Francisco 6.98 


508 


5,009 


6,690 


San Mateo 5.82 


233 


3,710 


4,050 


oanta uiara l£.IO 


A IP, 


D ,oUU 


D , 1 UU 


Solano 1.72 


61 


770 


640 


Sonoma 2.35 


76 


1 ,000 


760 


TOTAL 49.61 


2,074 


27,425 


28,180 



1980 Alameda 12.06 505 7,840 8,910 

Contra Costa 6.86 177 4,380 4,480 

Marin 2.59 64 2,190 2,550 

Napa 1.03 43 592 630 

San Francisco 7.08 520 6,330 8,980 

San Mateo 6.13 252 5,180 6,460 

Santa Clara 13.84 525 9,100 10,160 

Solano 1.99 68 1 ,100 1 ,090 

Sonoma 2.75 90 1 ,445 1 ,370 

TOTAL 54.33 2,244 38,157 44,640 



1985 Alameda 12.89 547 10,430 13,900 

Contra Costa 7.72 196 6,528 8,240 

Marin 2.96 74 3,338 4,620 

Napa 1.24 50 872 1 ,090 

San Francisco 7.14 568 7,906 12,600 

San Mateo 6.45 260 7,173 10,300 

Santa Clara 15.72 595 13,137 17 ,400 

Solano 2.39 83 1 ,647 1 ,980 

Sonoma 3.20 100 2,096 2,420 

TOTAL 59.71 2,473 53,127 72,550 



Population figures are from the California Department of Finance projections. 
Per capita income and employment remain the same as the original forecast work 
(employment figures from BATSC and income figures projected by the contractor). 

Total annual passenger figures have been rounded off to an appropriate 
precision level . 



B-3 



REGIONAL 
CARGO FORECASTS 



Employment Income Annual Annual Total 

(billions Enplaned Cargo Deplaned Cargo Annual Cargo 

(millions) of dollars) (millions lbs) (millions lbs) (millions lbs) 

1975 2.063 27.380 742 712 1,454 



1980 2.223 37.810 1 ,593 1 ,570 3,163 



1985 2.473 53.127 3,300 3,390 6,690 



Because of the uncertainties expressed by the contractor in 
the cargo projections by county, no breakdown of total cargo 
for the Region was calculated. 



B-4 



APPENDIX C 
CAPITAL COST ESTIMATES 



AIRLINE AIRPORT COST ESTIMATES 



1975* 

SFO 
OAK 
SJC 
TOTAL 

1980* 

SFO 
OAK 
SJC 
TRA 
NAP 
HAM 
TOTAL 

1985* 

SFO 
OAK 
SJC 
TRA 
NAP 
HAM 
TOTAL 



(millions of dollars at 1971 costs) 
Public Funds Only 



Original 
Estimated 
Passengers 
(MAP) 



8.8 
7.5 



13.8 
7.5 

29.5 
2.7 
2.7 



32.7 
24.1 
16.5 
29.5 
2.7 
2.7 



Cost at 
Original 
Passenger 
Level 



Recommended 
Passenger 
Level 
(MAP) 



16.5 
** 



34.8 
84.1 
340.0 
16.1 
11.7 



244.7+++ 
111. 2+++ 
143.1+++ 
340.0 

16.1 

11.7 



19 

6 

3 



23 
13 
6 
1 
1 
1 



32 
24 
10 
6 
1 
1 



Staff 

Adjusted 

Cost 



90.0 
16.5 
25.0** 



131 .5 



120.0 

34.8 

65.0** 

8.4+ 

16.1*** 
] 1 7*** 

239 .9**** 



244.7 

111 .2 

100.0** 

27.9++ 

16.1*** 
] ] 7*** 

495.5**** 



* Figures are cumulative from the present. 

** These estimates were obtained from SJC capital program. 

*** These estimates have not been revised downward since the primary 

work required would be little changed. 
**** Totals include HAM and not NAP. 
+ Assumes joint use of the existing runway system. 
++ If a completely separate runway were required, the land and 

construction cost would raise this to 32 or 66, depending 

upon whether a close-in or wide-track runway configurations 

were used. 

+++ These figures do not include transit. With transit, SFO = 302.2, 
OAK = 162.8, and SJC = 200.6. 



C-1 



GENERAL AVIATION COST ESTIMATE 



(millions of dollars) 
by 1985 



Improvements to Existing Airports : 

Buchanan Field 2.7 

Gnoss Field 3.7 

Hayward 3.9 

Livermore 4.9 

Palo Alto 1.1 

San Carlos 3.9 

SUBTOTAL 20.2 

Under Construction : 

South County 1 .5 

SUBTOTAL 1.5 

Replacement Airports : 

Antioch 1.3 

Fremont 2.6 

Petal uma ]_.J_ 

SUBTOTAL 5.0 



New Airports 

Alameda (1) 3.0 

Contra Costa (1 ) 3.0 

Napa (1) 3.0 

San Mateo (1) 3.0 

Santa Clara (3) 9.0 

Solano (1) 3.0 

SUBTOTAL 21.0 

GRAND TOTAL 47.7 



C-2